JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The Defendants in Money Suit No. 1/2003, by the present petition have sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 05.03.2004 and 02.09.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Morigaon. 2. The Respondent herein instituted Money Suit No. 1/2003 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Morigaon against the Petitioners/Defendants praying for a decree for realization of Rs. 16,06,897/- with interest for bundling and feeding works executed by it for raw materials, i.e. bamboo, pursuant to the work order issued in their favour by the Petitioners, alleging that the said amount though was due and payable, has not been paid. The Petitioners/Defendants on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed the written statement denying the claim of the Respondent/Plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit with an exemplary cost. In due course, the evidence of the Respondent/Plaintiff's witness No. 1 was examined and cross-examined. The Respondent, thereafter, on 30.01.2004 filed Petition No. 102/2004 for allowing it to file the originals copies retained by it of the bill Nos. 69 to 92, copies of which were filed along with the plaint and also register maintaining the accounts, stating inter alia, that those could not be filed earlier as the Chartered Accountant of Sibsagar, who was given those for the purpose of preparation of accounts, misfiled the same, but subsequently those could be traced out after the Plaintiff's evidence was adduced, though copies were filed along with the plaint. There was, however, no explanation as to why the copy of the register maintaining the accounts or the register could not be filed along with the plaint. Another petition being Petition No. 101/2004 was also filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for allowing the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 to be re-examined in respect of the documents, permission for filing of which was sought for by the other petition and to accept those documents in course of his re-examination. The Petitioners/Defendants, however, did not file any objection against the prayer made in the aforesaid two petitions. The learned Trial Court, upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the averments made in the said petitions, allowed both the petitions vide order dated 05.03.2004. The Petitioners/Defendants, however, did not file any objection against the prayer made in the aforesaid two petitions. The learned Trial Court, upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the averments made in the said petitions, allowed both the petitions vide order dated 05.03.2004. The Respondent/Plaintiff pursuant to such order filed the re-examination-in-chief of the Plaintiffs witness No. 1 by way of an affidavit on 22.03.2004. The Petitioners/Defendants, after lapse of about three months from the date of passing of the order dated 05.03.2004, filed an application for allowing them to file the objection against the aforesaid Petition Nos. 101/2004 and 102/2004 and to stay the operation of the order dated 05.03.2004, contending that due to the communication gap between the counsel and the Petitioners/Defendants, they could not file the objections against the prayer made in the said petitions, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 05.06.2004 itself and fixed 19.06.2004 for filing objections against the Petition Nos. 101/2004 and 102/2004 by the Petitioners/Defendants, without affording any opportunity to the Respondent/Plaintiff to file objection against such Petition No. 482/2004. On 19.06.2004, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed written objection against the Petition No. 482/2004. The Petitioners/Defendants also filed their written objections against the Petition Nos. 101/2004 and 102/2004 filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff. The learned Trial Court thereafter, on 30.06.2004 fixed 06.07.2004 for objection hearing on the Petition Nos. 482/2004, 101/2004 as well as 102/2004. Those petitions were heard by the learned Trial Court on 24.08.2004 and vide order dated 02.09.2004 rejected the Petition No. 482/2004 filed by the Petitioners/Defendants by maintaining the order dated 05.03.2004 and fixed 08.09.2004 for cross-examination of the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 as a part of reexamination. The suit was thereafter, fixed on several dates for cross-examination of the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 by the present Petitioners/Defendants, who on 08.09.2004, 20.01.2005 and 22.05.2005 sought adjournments, which were allowed. The Petitioners/Defendants thereafter, approached this Court by filing the present application under Article227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard Mr. P.C. Deka, the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants assisted by Mr. J. Roy, the learned Counsel and Mr. A.K. Goswami, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. U.R. Saikia, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff. 4. Referring to the provisions of Order 13, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been contended by Mr. Deka, the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants assisted by Mr. J. Roy, the learned Counsel and Mr. A.K. Goswami, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. U.R. Saikia, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff. 4. Referring to the provisions of Order 13, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been contended by Mr. Deka, the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants, that the parties to the suit are required to produce, on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original, the copies of which have been filed along with the plaint or the written statement and after amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by Act, 46 of 1999, no option is left to the Court to accept any document filed by any of the parties to the suit, after settlement of issues, since by the said Amendment Act the earlier provisions of Order 13, Rules 1 and 2 are substituted by new Order 13, Rule 1. It has been submitted by Mr. Deka that in the instant case, by Petition No. 102/2004 two sets of documents were sought to be introduced by the Respondent/Plaintiff, namely, original copy of the bill Nos. 69 to 92, copies of which were filed along with the plaint as required under Order 7, Rule14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a register stated to be maintaining the accounts, which was not filed at the time of filing the plaint as required under Order 7, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, according to Mr. Deka, such documents could not have been accepted by the learned Court below. It has further been submitted by Mr. Deka that Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure only empowers the Court to recall and examine any witnesses earlier examined and put such question to such witness as the Court thinks fit, for the purpose of clarification by the Court only and such power conferred on the Court cannot be extended to re-examine a witness already examined and cross-examined for the purpose of proving the documents subsequently produced. According to Mr. Deka, the order by which the learned Court below allowed the Respondent/Plaintiff to produce the documents is a nullity, the same having been allowed contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any case, according to Mr. According to Mr. Deka, the order by which the learned Court below allowed the Respondent/Plaintiff to produce the documents is a nullity, the same having been allowed contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any case, according to Mr. Deka, even under Section 148 Code of Civil Procedure the maximum time, which can be enlarged by the Court being 30 days from the date of settlement of issues, the petition being Petition No. 102/2004 having been filed after more than seven months from the date of settlement of issues, the Court cannot enlarge the time for accepting the documents. Mr. Deka further contends that there is no explanation in the Petition No. 102/2004 as to why the register allegedly maintained in course of the business could not be produce in time and, therefore, acceptance of such register by the impugned orders is ex-facie illegal. In support of the contention that the impugned order dated 05.03.2004 accepting the documents is a nullity, Mr. Deka, the learned Sr. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and Ors. v. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani reported in (2004) 1 SCC 497 . Mr. Deka further submits that the Respondent/Plaintiff still can prove the bills being Nos. 69 to 92 not through the PW-1, who has already been examined and cross-examined, but through any other witness as Order 18, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, does not empower the Court to recall a witness for the purpose of proving the documents, who has already been examined and cross-examined. 5. Mr. Goswami, the learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, has submitted that even though by the Amendment Act of 1999 the earlier provisions in Order 13, Rules 1 and 2 have been substituted by the new provision of Order 13, Rule 1, which requires filing of documentary evidence in original by the parties to the suit on or before settlement of issues, power of the Court in accepting the document at a later stage cannot be taken away, provided the party to the suit filing such document demonstrates good and sufficient reason in not filing the same in time. According to Mr. According to Mr. Goswami, the Court can even, in appropriate case, accept such document by exercising the power conferred by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since there is no specific bar in Order 13, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to accept the documents at a later stage of the suit, to do justice to the party. It has further been contended by Mr. Goswami, that the effort of the Court should be to receive the best evidence available, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the impugned orders accepting the documents filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff at a later stage and allowing re-examination of the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 to prove those documents. According to Mr. Goswami, the Court under Order 18, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can direct re-examination of a witness. Mr. Goswami referring to the provision of Order 7, Rule 14(3) Code of Civil Procedure further submits that the Court has the power to receive any document in evidence on behalf of the party, at the hearing of the suit, even if such document though ought to have been produced in the Court by the Plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, but has not been produced or entered accordingly, provided the Court grants leave for that purpose, subject to demonstrating good and sufficient reasons. In the instant case, according to Mr. Goswami, since the Respondent has shown good and sufficient cause in the petition No. 102/2004 for not producing the documents in time, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in accepting such documents and allowing re-examination of the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 for proving such document, as the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 is the best person to prove such document, he being the managing partner of the Respondent's/Plaintiff's partnership firm. According to Mr. Goswami, the rules of procedure being the handmaid and not the mistress of justice and its object being to advance the cause of justice and there being no bar in the Code of Civil Procedure to accept documents at a later stage, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in allowing both the petition Nos. 101/2004 and 102/2004. 101/2004 and 102/2004. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to pass orders to do justice to a litigant if sufficient cause is made out, as has been done in the instant case by the learned Court below, submits the learned Counsel. Mr. Goswami in support ofhis contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das AIR 1961 SC 882 and Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 46 . 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts narrated herein before are not in dispute. The issues in the suit were settled on 09.03.2003. The examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit of the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 was filed on 11.04.2003, who was cross-examined by the Petitioners/Defendants on 06.12.2003, where after the witness was discharged. The petition Nos. 101/2004 and 102/2004 were filed on 30.01.2004. In petition No. 102/2004, the Respondent/Plaintiff prayed for allowing them to file the original copy retained by it of the bill Nos. 69 to 92, copies of which were filed along with the plaint, and also the original register maintaining the accounts, copy of which were not filed along with the plaint, contending that the originals of the bills could not be filed earlier as those were misplaced by the chartered accountant of Sibsagar, who kept those for the purpose of preparation of accounts and after examination of the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 those could be traced out after a long effort. There is, however, no explanation whatsoever relating to non-filing of either the original or the copy of the register along with the plaint, sought to be filed by the said application. For better appreciation, the petition No. 102/2004 is quoted below: IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, (S.D.), MORIGAON M.S. No. 1/03 Dt. 30.1.04 M/s Saikia Associates...Plaintiff v. Nagaon Paper Mill under H.P.C. Ltd. and Ors....Defendants IN THE MATTER OF A petition preferred under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The humble petition preferred for and on behalf of the Plaintiff abovenamed: MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That, the above noted suit is fixed today for adducing further evidence from the Plaintiff's side. 2. The humble petition preferred for and on behalf of the Plaintiff abovenamed: MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That, the above noted suit is fixed today for adducing further evidence from the Plaintiff's side. 2. That, at the time of filing the plaint, the Plaintiff submitted Photostat copies of original Bills No. 69 to 92 and could not submit the original duplicate Bill as those were in the hand of one chartered accountant of Sibsagar submitted to him for preparation of accounts and as he misfiled the same, the original duplicate Bills could not be traced out and as such filed at the time of instituted of the suit. 3. That, even at the time of adducing Plaintiffs evidence, those original duplicate Bills were not traced out but after along efforts, those bill were traced out and as such, the Plaintiff begs permission of your Hon'ble Court to submit those deeds in the above noted suit. 4. That, unless the Hob'ble Court be pleased to allow the Plaintiff's side to submit those original duplicate Bills, the Plaintiff's side will be highly prejudiced as well as suffer from irreparable loss. 5. That, this petition is made bona fide and also for the interest of justice. In view of humble submissions made above, it is prayed that Your Honour may be pleased to pass an order allowing the Plaintiff's side to submit original duplicate Bills No. 69 to 92 and also the Register maintaining the accounts therefore for meeting the ends of justice. And for this act of kindness the Plaintiffs side shall ever pray. Description of documents intended to be submitted: 1) Original duplicate copies of Bills No. 69 to 92. 2) Register maintaining the Accounts therefore. 8. The Respondent/Plaintiff also filed petition No. 101/2004 for re-examination of the Plaintiffs witness No. 1, the lone witness examined in the suit, for the purpose of proving the documents sought to be introduced vide petition No. 102/2004, stating that such reexamination is necessary as the documents could not be filed and proved earlier while examining that witness, which is necessary for the interest of justice, otherwise, it would cause prejudice and also irreparable loss to the Respondent/Plaintiff. 9. 9. The question, which requires determination by this Court, in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the undisputed facts narrated above, is--whether the Court has the power to accept documents after settlement of issues, copies of which were, either, filed along with the plaint or not at all filed? 10. Order 7, Rule 14(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the Plaintiff to enter all the documents in a list, upon which he sues or places reliance, which are in his possession or power, in support of his claim and to produce the same in court when the plaint is presented by him and at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 further requires the Plaintiff to state in whose possession or power such document is, where such document is not in the possession or power of the Plaintiff. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, however, is an exception to Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the Court to receive any document in evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff, which has not been produced in Court by the Plaintiff when the plaint was presented, or entered in the list or annexed to the plaint, at the hearing of the suit, as the power has been conferred on the Court to grant leave in that regard. The Court, however, cannot exercise the discretion conferred on it of granting or refusing the leave, arbitrarily and such discretion has to be exercised judiciously, depending on the facts of each case and on showing sufficient reason for not producing, while the plaint was presented or not entering in the list or in not annexing to the plaint. Rule 17(1) of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure further requires the Plaintiff to produce the book or account at the time of filing the plaint, together with a copy of the entry on which he relies, where the document on which the Plaintiff sues is an entry in a shop book or other account in his possession or power, save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the Court, or such officer as it appoints in this behalf, to forthwith mark the document for the purpose of identification, and return the book to the Plaintiff and cause the copy to be filed, if after examining and comparing the copy with the original, it is found correct and to certify the same to be so. 11. Order 13, Rule 2, as it stood prior to amendment by the amending Act of 46 of 1999 (which came into force with effect from 01.07.2002) empowered the Court to accept the documents at any subsequent stage of the proceeding, which have not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 of Order 13, provided good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non-production thereof. It also required the Court to record reason for acceptance of such evidence. After the amendment Act of 46 of 1999 came into force, original Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 were substituted by new Rule 1. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 requires the parties or the pleader to produce on or before the settlement of issues, all documentary evidence in original where the copies there of have been filed along with the plaint or written statement. Sub-rule (2) provides that the Court, thereafter, shall receive such document so produced provided they are accompanied by an accurate list in such form as the High Court directs. The requirement of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to documents--(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory, provides Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 13 Code of Civil Procedure. 12. The requirement of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to documents--(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory, provides Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 13 Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Reading the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14, Rule 17 and Order 13, Rule 1, after amendment, it, therefore, transpires that the Court can accept the documents filed by the Plaintiff and receive the same in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit, even if such document though ought to be produced in Court by the Plaintiff when the plaint was presented, or ought to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint, but has not been produced or entered accordingly, provided of course with the leave of the Court. Such discretion, of granting or refusing leave, to be exercised by the Court, as noticed above, must be based on some foundation and cannot be arbitrarily exercised. Such discretion has to be exercised judiciously and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and also to do justice between the parties. Therefore, it is not that no document, after settlement of the issues, can be accepted by the Court at all, copy of which was not filed along with the plaint though required to be filed. The Plaintiff, however, in order to make out a case for exercising the discretion in his favour has to demonstrate the factual foundation to the satisfaction of the Court relating to the good and sufficient reason. Furthermore, the Court, in a given case, can in exercise of the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure accept such document at a later stage of the proceeding, if making of such an order is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse to the process of the Court. 13. Furthermore, the Court, in a given case, can in exercise of the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure accept such document at a later stage of the proceeding, if making of such an order is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse to the process of the Court. 13. The Apex Court in Mahanth Ram Das (supra) while considering the provisions of Sections 148,149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to, the peremptory order for payment of deficit Court fee within the time fixed, has opined that the Court can extend the time by exercising the power under Sections 148, 149 and also 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to do justice to a litigant, if sufficient cause is made out for extension. The Apex Court in the said judgment has further observed that the procedural orders though peremptory are, in essence, in terrorem, so that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay, however, they do not completely estop a court from taking note of events and circumstances, which happens within the time fixed. The procedures are handmaid of justice and not the mistress of the judicial process. 14. The procedures are something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties, not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore, be guarded against, lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it, provided always that justice is done to both the sides. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice, subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. If a fact arising after the lis has come to Court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events, which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Anr. AIR 1955 SC 425 , Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders AIR 1975 SC 1409 . AIR 1955 SC 425 , Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders AIR 1975 SC 1409 . The Apex Court in Sheikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab (supra) has also observed that the procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. 15. In the case in hand, in the Petition No. 102/2004, the Respondent/Plaintiff has shown sufficient cause in not producing the original copies retained by it, of the bill Nos. 69 to 92, copies of which were filed along with the plaint. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the learned Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 5.4.2004, accepting such documents, so as to require interference of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227of the Constitution of India. However, the admissibility or otherwise of such documents, is to be decided by the learned Court below in accordance with and in appropriate stage. 16. The Respondent/Plaintiff, however, has not given any reason, not even a whisper, relating to the non-production of the register, which was sought to be introduced vide Petition No. 102/2004. In the absence of any reason whatsoever, the learned Court below ought not to have exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the Plaintiff in accepting such register. Hence, the impugned order dated 05.03.2004, so far as it relates to the acceptance of the register stated to be the accounts maintained in course of business, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the finding recorded above, it cannot be said that the order dated 05.03.2004 passed by the learned Court below is a nullity as a whole as submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants. Hence, the decision of the Apex Court in Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and Ors. (supra) as cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff is not applicable in the present case. 18. The next question, which requires determination is as to whether the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 can be re-examined, once he was examined, cross-examined and discharged? 19. Hence, the decision of the Apex Court in Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and Ors. (supra) as cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff is not applicable in the present case. 18. The next question, which requires determination is as to whether the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 can be re-examined, once he was examined, cross-examined and discharged? 19. Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness, who has been examined and may, subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force, put such question to him as the Court thinks fit. This provision empowers the Court to recall any witness and put questions to him for the purpose of clarification. The witness that may be recalled by the Court for putting questions for clarifications may not be allowed to be cross-examined by the Court. Chapter-X of the Indian Evidence Act provides the manner of examination of witness. Section 135 lays down the order of production and cross-examination of witness, Section 136empowers the Court to decide as to the admissibility of the evidence. Section 137 defines what are examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. Section 138 provides the order of examination of witnesses. It provides that the witness shall be first examined-in-chief, then, if the adverse party so desires, cross-examined and thereafter, if the party calling him so desires, re-examined. It also provides that the reexamination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in reexamination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter. 20. It is, therefore, evident from Section 138 of the Evidence Act that re-examination of a witness, even in the new matter, with the permission of the Court, is permissible, however, in that case the adverse party must be given the opportunity to cross-examine such witness upon such matter. Hence, in a given case, subject to showing sufficient cause for that purpose, re-examination of a witness, who has been examined-in-chief and cross-examined, can be allowed by the Court. The Court also, as noticed above, in a given case can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and direct re-examination of a witness, who has been examined, cross-examined and discharged earlier. The Court also, as noticed above, in a given case can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and direct re-examination of a witness, who has been examined, cross-examined and discharged earlier. In the instant case, by the Petition No. 101/2004 the Respondent/Plaintiff prayed for re-examination of the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 with a view to prove the documents, which were sought to be filed vide Petition No. 102/2004, such witness being the best witness to prove those documents being the managing partner of the Plaintiff's partner-ship firm. There is no reason as to why the Respondent/Plaintiff should not be given a chance to prove the same through the best witness, namely the PW-1. After all the procedures are laid down to facilitate justice and not to trip the people up. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 05.03.2004 is set aside in so far as it relates to allowing the Respondent/Plaintiff to file and tender in evidence the register purportedly maintaining the accounts, however, without interfering with the said order in so far as it relates to allowing the Respondent/Plaintiff to file the original copies retained by it, of the bill Nos. 69 to 92. The challenge made to the order allowing the Respondent/Plaintiff to re-examine the Plaintiff's witness No. 1, is also rejected. 22. This petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.