Sudip Ranjan Sen, J;— Heard Mr. Satyen Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff. None appeared on behalf of the respondents/defendants, though the record speaks that A/D for them have returned after service. 1. The appellant has approached this Court by way of an appeal Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment & Decree dated 20.06.2006 passed in the Money Suit No. 18 of 2004 by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Jorhat. 2. The appeal memo discloses that the appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2006 in Money Suit No. 18/2004 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat, preferred this Appeal on the ground that the learned Court below has passed the judgement and decree without appreciating both the facts and law. Hence this appeal. 3. The matter came up for hearing on 06.02.2012 before this Division Bench. Mr. S. Sarma submitted that the learned Court below simply dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that a translated copy of the news item in the “Amar Asom ” dated 13/06/2000 had been produced and the original thereof had not been proved. 4. The learned counsel also submitted that though the appellant had failed to produce the original newspaper at the time of filing issues and documents at a later stage, a petition was filed before the learned Court below to allow him to produce the publication, in question, but the same was not entertained and the suit was dismissed. In course of his submissions the learned counsel also relied on (1998) 4 SCC 543 (Shreenath and Another Vs. Rajesh and Others), (2001) 8 SCC 151 (Ms. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others)(, (2004) 2 GLR 256(Shikhar Chand Falodia and Anr. Vs. Sushil Kumar Sanganeria and Brothers), (1989) 1 SCC 494 (Smt. Kiran Bedi Vs. Committee of Inquiry and Another) 5. Rajesh and Others), (2001) 8 SCC 151 (Ms. Grewal and Another Vs. Deep Chand Sood and Others)(, (2004) 2 GLR 256(Shikhar Chand Falodia and Anr. Vs. Sushil Kumar Sanganeria and Brothers), (1989) 1 SCC 494 (Smt. Kiran Bedi Vs. Committee of Inquiry and Another) 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2006 and the plaint before the learned Court below, it appears to us that the entire case is based on a news item published at a local daily newspaper called “Amar Asom.” The translated version which is a hereunder: “ PATHOLOGICAL LABORATORIR KANDA- HEPATITIS B NOHOAKAIYE HEPATITIS B PRATIKHEDAK” To the plaintiff, under that caption, the defendants had published the English translation which was given by the plaintiff in para-5 of the plaint as follows:- “ In the wake of mush room growth of innumerable growth of Pathological Laboratories, in the State of Assam, the creditibility of performances of the said Laboratories were disputed and during the Pendency of such disputes relating to the creditibility one clinical Laboratory at Jorhat had wrongly diagnosed a lady who was not infected with Hepatitis B. The said lady a resident of Pulibor is intending to seek legal relief before the Consumer Forum. According to Sri Rituraj Borbora, as conveyed to the Staff Reporter that his wife Smti. Puhin Borbora, during the first part of the month of May during the current year was attacked by fever. According to the advice of their doctor, her urine was tested by “Barua Clinical Laboratory” The test report revealed that the patient was suffering from general infection of Jaundice and accordingly her treatment was conducted. As another medical practitioner, by name Dr. Rajib Borbora alleged to be closely associated with the family of Sri Rituraj Borbora, the husband of Smti. Puhin Borbora on the advice of the doctor arranged to conduct the blood test in the said “Barua Clinical Laboratory” on 18th March. The blood test report of “Barua Clinical Laboratory” revealed that the lady is siffering from Hepatities B. which set the entire family grief stricken”. 6. Puhin Borbora on the advice of the doctor arranged to conduct the blood test in the said “Barua Clinical Laboratory” on 18th March. The blood test report of “Barua Clinical Laboratory” revealed that the lady is siffering from Hepatities B. which set the entire family grief stricken”. 6. Order VII Rule 14 (3) of Civil Procedure Code speaks as: hereunder: “a document which ought to be produced in 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 is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit”. 7. So, on a perusal of the provision of law as quoted above we are of the considered view that the document on which the plaintiff sought to rely in original in this case is not totally precluded to be placed before the Court even after the stage of the issues and documents. Rather the legislature made a provision to file documents at any stage, to meet the ends of justice. However, the document is to be filed or brought on record with the leave of the Court. 8. We do not see any reason how, if the said news item comes on record even at this stage, it will cause any prejudice to the respondents/defendants. Ultimately it is the truth to prevail. This is more so as the Respondents/Defendants have admitted the publication of the news item. 9. We have also gone through the order dated 23.05.2006 of the learned Lower Court passed on the petition No. 293/2006 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 R/W Section 151 CPC praying to the Court to allow him to produce the original newspaper publishing the defamatory publication against the appellant/plaintiff and subsequent rejoinder by the appellant/plaintiff and others against the same. 10. The learned Court below however came to the finding that at this stage appellant/plaintiff cannot be allowed to file the documents as prayed for, if it allowed it will cause prejudice to the Respondents/Defendants. Hence, the learned Court below had rejected the petition No. 293/2006. 11. 10. The learned Court below however came to the finding that at this stage appellant/plaintiff cannot be allowed to file the documents as prayed for, if it allowed it will cause prejudice to the Respondents/Defendants. Hence, the learned Court below had rejected the petition No. 293/2006. 11. After going through carefully the appeal memo as well as the impugned judgement dated 20.06.2006 passed by the Learned Court below and in consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, it appears that, the whole case before the learned Court below is on the basis of news item published in a daily newspaper called “Amar Asom” dated 13/06/2000. So, while deciding whether any defamatory statement has been published, in the newspaper ought to have been allowed to be produced and considered by the learned trial court. 12. It is a fact that, appellant/plaintiff should have filed all the documents at the stage of issues and documents. In case he failed to do so he could have brought the matter to the notice of the learned Court below immediately after framing of all issues and documents or at the stage of evidence. 13. However, the main issue before us is whether by not placing the news item before the Court or failing to produce the news item in appropriate time it is enough to dismiss the suit, when publication thereof is admitted by the Respondents/Defendants. 14. In our considered view the learned court is to render substantial justice. It is a settled principle of law that on mere technicality a court should not reject the plea otherwise legally substantial. A Court is duty bound to render substantial justice and not shut the door of justice merely on technicalities. 15. Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned judgment in question we consider that it would be in the interest of justice, if the appellant/plaintiff is given a chance to produce daily newspaper called “Amar Asom” dated 13.06.2000 in original before the learned Court below and other documents as he prayed in the petition No. 293/2006. Ordered accordingly. Thereafter, the learned Court below after considering the original newspaper and documents and after taking further evidence if any and after hearing of both the parties would decide the suit on merit. 16. Ordered accordingly. Thereafter, the learned Court below after considering the original newspaper and documents and after taking further evidence if any and after hearing of both the parties would decide the suit on merit. 16. Accordingly, we remand the case for fresh trial in the light of the above observations made by us. The learned trial court is requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Appeal is allowed. No costs. 17. Registry to send back the Lower Court records along with a copy of this judgment and order. _____________