JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). In view of nature of the order that is proposed to be made, issuance of notice to the respondents, is dispensed with. 2. Heard. Being aggrieved by rejection of his prayer for production of documents, that is, death certificate in respect of the father of the parties and extract of family register under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’), the petitioner is in revision before this Court under Section 115 CPC. 3.In a suit for grant of a declaration to the following effect filed by contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs, the petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2 are the defendants: “that the plaintiffs are co-sharers/co-owners alongwith defendant No. 01, 03 & 04 in regard to land comprised in khata No. 19, khatauni No. 21, khasra Nos. 42, 43, 87, 88, 89, 90, 293/128, 130, 130/1, 133, 134, 139, 140, 307/232, 312/232, 244, 256, 259, plots -18, land measuring 5-24-42HM, khata No. 18 Min, Khatauni No. 20, khasra No. 123, land measuring 1-90-63 HM alongwith khasra No. 292/128 (292/128, land measuring 0-16-80 HM, vide jamabandi for the yr. 2000-200 1, according to share and mutation No. 53 dated 20.08.2005, sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 01, on the basis of impugned gift deed dated 24.03.1994 and by ignoring the order of Ld. Consolidation Officer, Dehra, Distt. Kangra (HP) dated 15.10.1998 in appeal No. 24/98 titled as Dhian Singh V/S Karan Singh etc. remanded by the Additional Director of Consolidation Holding of Himachal Pradesh in appeal/missal No. 234/91 dated 24.10.1997 U/S 54 of the HP Holding (Consolidation) and preventation fragmentation) Act, 1971 filed by the defendant No. 02 against the order of Ld. SO (CH) Hamirpur (HP), dated 25.08.1989 in appeal No. 139/89, furthermore, the said sanctioned mutation No. 53 dated 20.08.2005 aforesaid also eliminating the entitlement of the plaintiffs as to their equal ownership alongwith the defendant no. SO (CH) Hamirpur (HP), dated 25.08.1989 in appeal No. 139/89, furthermore, the said sanctioned mutation No. 53 dated 20.08.2005 aforesaid also eliminating the entitlement of the plaintiffs as to their equal ownership alongwith the defendant no. 01 over the land mentioned in the said mutation on the basis of impugned gift deed as well as impugned mutation No. 53, is illegal, null and void, nonest and non- operative as a result of misrepresentation and fraud on the part of defendant No. 01 and not binding on the rights of plaintiffs with consequential relief or restraining the defendant from cutting, removing any trees or alienate any part of the suit land in any­body’s favour by way of gift, mortgage, lease, sale etc. or in any other manner by defendant till the land is legally partitioned by metes and bounds finally.” 4.The prayer of the petitioner for production of the aforesaid documents has been declined by the learned trial court, vide the impugned order dated 21 .05.2013, on the ground that the same are not material for just and proper adjudication of the case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be produced now would go to show that notice in the consolidation proceedings said to have been served upon him through his ‘Bhabhi’ (brother’s wife), did not amount to service according to law as the said ‘Bhabhi’ alongwith her family was living separately from him prior to the death of the father of the parties. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner could have produced/relied upon these documents at the initial stage, had he exercised due diligence. However, the fact remains that the prayer in this regard has been made in the Court of the first instance, though at a highly belated stage at the time of final arguments. However, taking into consideration the legal position which stands crystallized in such matters that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and are required to be so used and not to thwart the same, I am satisfied that it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice if the petitioner is permitted to produce the aforesaid documents in defence and prejudice, if any, that may be caused to the other side on this count can very well be taken care of by putting the petitioner to terms. 5.In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.05.2013 is set-aside and instead the petitioner is permitted to produce the aforesaid documents in defence subject to costs of ‘ 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) which shall be tendered before the learned trial court and shall be payable to contesting respondents No. 1 and 2, who shall share the same equally. Out of the documents to be produced in defence, whereas the death certificate is per se admissible in evidence, copy of pariwar register is required to be proved in accordance with law for which the learned trail court shall fix a date for which dasti summons shall be made available to the petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2 (defendants), who shall get the same served upon the concerned witness well in time and ensure that the witness is examined on the date fixed without any adjournment in this regard on any ground, whatsoever. 6.The petitioner, through counsel, is directed to appear before the learned trial court on 10.06.2013 for which date the case is stated to be fixed in that Court. 7.The petition, as also pending CMP No. 691 of 2013, stand disposed of in the above terms. Copy dasti.