JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 01.08.2022, passed below Exhibit-65 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013, whereby application filed by the petitioner – defendant No. 1 seeking leave of the Court to produce documents as per the list submitted before the Court vide Exhibit-66, which came to be rejected, except two documents cited at serial No. 7 and 13, production of which respondent No. 1 – plaintiff has not objected to as recorded in the impugned order. 2. Respondent No. 1 – plaintiff filed aforesaid suit praying for declaration to the effect that the confirmation deed dated 17.03.2010 said to have been executed before Notary Public is forged one, containing false signature of the plaintiff and to declare it null and void. Pursuant to the suit filed and in response to the summons issued by the Court, the defendants in the suit, including the present petitioner – defendant No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement somewhere in the month of July, 2017. However, at the time of filing of the written statement, no list of documents as provided under Order VIII Rule 1A(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) came to be filed. Though no date when issues were settled is furnished by learned advocate for the petitioner but the fact remains that issues were settled and thereafter deposition of plaintiff was submitted on affidavit and the defendant in the suit cross-examined the plaintiff on 25.07.2022. The respondent No. 1 – plaintiff filed a closing pursis on 27.07.2022 declaring closure of his evidence. Till that date, petitioner – defendant No. 1 never produced any documents even without seeking leave of the Court. On 03.09.2022, petitioner – defendant No. 1 tendered his examination-in-chief on oath though it is dated 01.08.2022. He produced a list Exhibit-66, which is annexed at page 122 of the petition seeking leave of the Court to produce the same vide application Exhibit-65, as referred to hereinabove dated 01.08.2022. Thus, it appears that the said examination-in-chief on oath came to be filed only after this petition is affirmed on 30.08.2022. 3. He produced a list Exhibit-66, which is annexed at page 122 of the petition seeking leave of the Court to produce the same vide application Exhibit-65, as referred to hereinabove dated 01.08.2022. Thus, it appears that the said examination-in-chief on oath came to be filed only after this petition is affirmed on 30.08.2022. 3. Exhibit-65 application, which is at page 131 of the compilation, refers that for the just decision of a case, certain documents, which are required, copies of certain documents, certified copies and a list of documents with originals produced in a cognate suit, the copy thereof was sought to be produced and leave was sought for from the Court for the production of the same. Over the said application Exhibit-65, learned advocates representing the parties have endorsed that since majority of the documents are copies and no originals were produced and majority of the documents are colour xerox, the production thereof was objected to and different endorsement were made on the said application objecting to the production thereof by the advocates for the parties. After hearing the learned advocates for the appearing parties, the aforesaid impugned order came to be passed, which is under challenge before this Court. 4. Heard Mr. Dhaval Dave, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel, appearing with Mr. Tatvam K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner – defendant No. 1. He has submitted that considering the language of Order VIII rule 1A, Rule 1A(1) and (2) of “the Code”, it is not mandatory in view of sub-rule (3), which came to be inserted, whereby second opportunity is given to a party to produce the document, which ought to be produced, as referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 1A of Order VIII of “the Code”, of course with the leave of the Court. 4.1 He has further submitted that the procedural rules have to be construed liberally and in the interest of justice, unless the prejudice is shown by the other side because of the breach of the procedural lapses. He has further submitted that if a party misses an opportunity to produce the documents along with a list at the time of filing written statement, he has a second chance to produce the same, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, with the leave of the Court, which should be leniently viewed and granted by the Court. He has further submitted that if a party misses an opportunity to produce the documents along with a list at the time of filing written statement, he has a second chance to produce the same, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, with the leave of the Court, which should be leniently viewed and granted by the Court. 4.2 He has further submitted that even if application seeking leave of the Court for production of documents contains no reasons for non-production, late production or offering no explanation thereof, it is not fatal to the case of the defendant. He has further submitted that despite that while arguing the case before the Court, he has tried to explain why it is produced late. Even if there is a total lapse, it is not the end of the matter and if no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff by late production, it has to be permitted. 4.3 Drawing attention of the Court to Order VIII read with Order XIII rule 1 of “the Code”, it is submitted that conjointly the provisions aimed at securing one common object that all documents to be produced before settling of issues. He has further submitted that while arguing the application itself, in view of new development, certain documents have been produced seeking leave of the Court, and therefore, production thereof subject to proof and in absence of prejudice caused to have been shown, the Court should grant leave to produce such documents, maybe at a belated stage. In support of his submissions, he has relied on a decision in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by legal representatives and another v. P. Rajkumar Rep. by his Power Agent Imam Oli, rendered in 2020 (10) SCC 706 , to submit that Court should take a lenient view when application is made for production of documents under Order VIII rule 1A(3) of “the Code”. Drawing attention of the Court to para 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the said decision, it is submitted that sub-rule (3) of rule 1A of Order VIII of “the Code” provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce documents, which ought to have been produced in the Court along with the written statement but with the leave of the Court. Based on it, it is submitted that even if he has missed out or not produced any of the documents while he submitted his written statement, with the leave of the Court, under subrule (3) of rule 1A, he can still produce documents with the leave of the Court. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, leave can be granted by the Court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. Relying on the aforesaid decision, it is submitted that Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon technical and procedural violations. It is submitted that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the Courts are required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. 4.4 Relying on a decision in the case of Sathyanath and another v. Sarojamani, reported in 2022 (7) SCC 644 , paragraph 20 thereof, it is submitted that the procedure is the handmaid of justice and Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice which has been taken note of, of a decision in the case of Sugandhi (supra), while dealing with the case under the law report. He has further relied on an order of the Supreme Court in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. V. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr., rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022, it is submitted that defendant must be permitted to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. He has further submitted that while granting leave to produce documents at that stage, even plaintiff can be directed to lead further evidence if any, before the defendants are given an opportunity to lead evidence. 4.5 He has further submitted that relying on a decision in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Anr. He has further submitted that while granting leave to produce documents at that stage, even plaintiff can be directed to lead further evidence if any, before the defendants are given an opportunity to lead evidence. 4.5 He has further submitted that relying on a decision in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Anr. v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors., reported in 1994 (4) SCC 659 , more particularly, para 4 thereof to submit that it is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the Court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, while exercising the power under Order XLI, Rule 27 of “the Code”, the appellate Court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity be given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect they may have, be considered in deciding the issues arising in the controversy. 4.6 Relying on a decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Union of India, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 737 of 2018, wherein plaintiff was refused permission to produce certain documents merely on the ground that those documents were not produced along with the plaint and that Order VII rule 14(3) of “the Code” shall not be applicable to the commercial Court proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act as also on the ground of delay, this Court permitted the production thereof as grave injustice was likely to be caused to the party producing the documents, if denied production thereof. Much emphasis is laid in concluding part of para 14 that documents, unless they are doubtful or manufactured, as recorded therein, Court should not generally deny leave to produce documents, as it is always open to the other side to cross examine the party, who produces the documents, to establish that the said documents are not relevant or that the case based on the said documents is not true. On the aforesaid submissions and the precedents relied on by learned advocate for the petitioner - defendant No.1 submitted that this petition be admitted and allowed. 5. As against that, Mr. On the aforesaid submissions and the precedents relied on by learned advocate for the petitioner - defendant No.1 submitted that this petition be admitted and allowed. 5. As against that, Mr. Apurva S. Vakil, learned advocate for the respondent No 1 - plaintiff submitted that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner - defendant No.1 are at a stage where plaintiff has led his evidence and he is also cross-examined by the defendant, that too, when he has not produced those documents as required under Order VIII rule 1A(1) of “the Code” before entering upon his defense. 5.1 He has submitted that, there is no question of prejudice being shown by the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff for the production of the documents. It is for the party who seeks to produce to show that production of those documents will not cause any prejudice to the other side. 5.2 Drawing attention of the Court to rule 1 of Order VIII, it is submitted that there is a time limit prescribed for filing of a written statement and for production of the document along with the list, is also provided for, at the time when written statement is presented along with it, a list and copies of documents are required to be produced, defendant No. 1 fails to do so. He has submitted that though he filed written statement but did not produce documents at that stage, not only prior to the settling of the issues original were not produced, even copies were not produced. 5.3 He has further submitted that it is only when respondent No. 1 – plaintiff filed closing pursis, petitioner – defendant No. 1, has come out with the production of these documents before entering upon his own defense. Though his examination-in-chief on oath bears the date of 01.08.2022, the date on which he files the application seeking leave to produce the documents, petitioner – defendant No. 1 did not produce his examination-in-chief on oath on that day. 5.4 Drawing attention of the Court to rule 1 of Order XIII of “the Code”, he has submitted that stage of production of documents, that too, originals thereof is up to the stage at or before settling of issues. 5.4 Drawing attention of the Court to rule 1 of Order XIII of “the Code”, he has submitted that stage of production of documents, that too, originals thereof is up to the stage at or before settling of issues. Therefore, he has submitted that not only issues were settled, but respondent No. 1 – plaintiff entered the witness box, he is cross-examined by the defendant and he closes his evidence, thereafter only he has come out with an application seeking leave to produce the documents. According to his submission, once that stage of production of original documents is over, he cannot go back to the stage of order VIII rule 1A(3) of “the Code”. 5.5 Drawing attention of the Court to application Exhibit- 65, he has submitted that no cause is shown as to why, on that belated stage, he seeks leave for production of the documents or no explanation offered thereof. Drawing attention of the Court to the submission made while arguing the application Exhibit-65, he has submitted that for new development to be brought on record, he has sought leave of the Court to produce the documents. He has submitted that when the trial Court assigned adequate reasons, that too, not inconsistent with the record, there is neither error in fact nor in law, much less jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order, therefore, he requested that this petition may not be entertained. 5.6 He has further submitted that no perversity is pointed out in the impugned order so as to interfere with it, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that as such there are no new developments, if list Exhibit-66 is seen, majority of those documents existed prior to even filing of the suit as also all the documents existed before filing of the written statement by the petitioner – defendant No. 1. He has further submitted that as such there are no new developments, if list Exhibit-66 is seen, majority of those documents existed prior to even filing of the suit as also all the documents existed before filing of the written statement by the petitioner – defendant No. 1. 5.7 He has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Syndicate Bank v. Ishan Communication Private Limited, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9554 of 2009, more particularly para 5 thereof to submit that taking note of the amendment with effect from 01.07.2002, this Court did not permit production of the document after settlement of the issues and evidence of certain witnesses were over, that too, no explanation thereof could be offered for non-production at that relevant time or an explanation for late production. The aforesaid decision is also relied on for a precedent that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 5.8 Decision of this Court in the case of Manubhai Dharamsinhbhai Suthar v. Shri Ramedra J. Parikh and another, rendered in 2012 SCC Online Gujarat 4593, for a proposition that production of document after the other side has led evidence and cross-examination is over, if permitted it would amount to filling up of lacuna, and therefore, it should not be permitted. 5.9 Decision of this Court in the case of Mansukhlal Nanjibhai Devani and Ors. vs Alkaben Gokaldas Raja, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 17193 of 2016, is relied on in support of his statement with regard to principles of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also pointing out that the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) relied on by the petitioner – defendant No.1, also considered by the Court while not entertaining the petition during the course of evidence of the defendant when the plaintiff filed an application seeking permission to produce documents mentioned in the list produced by him in that case. 5.10 Mr. 5.10 Mr. Apurva S. Vakil, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 – plaintiff, has further relied on a decision in the case of Sameer Suresh Gupta through PA holder v. Rajkumar Agarwal, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 374 , for exercise of jurisdiction by the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the nature, scope and ambit of the same, as also parameters of the exercise of the powers by the High Court are reiterated by the Supreme Court. Relying on a decision in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors, reported in 2003 (6) SCC 675 , more particularly, in para 4 thereof, which is quoted in para 6 of the precedent referred to, submitting that it is only when failure of justice or a grave injustice has occasioned, the High Court may exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the very same submission, for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, he has relied on a decision in the case of M/S Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel, rendered in 2022 (4) SCC 181 , more particularly para 15 and 16 thereof, to submit that the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a Court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. 5.11 Drawing attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in Appeal from Order No. 159 of 2021 and another appeal challenging Exhibit-5 order granted in favor of respondent No. 1 – plaintiff, where the present petitioner – defendant No. 1 agreed to maintaining status-quo qua the property in question till final disposal of all the suits in between the parties as also agreed to a direction to the trial Court to expedite the hearing and disposal of the suit as earlier as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of that order. It is submitted that period of six months, which was the preferable limit given by the Court, was approaching fast and at the fag end of it, the petitioner – defendant No. 1 has come out with application Exhibit-65 requesting production of documents, that too, after the plaintiff closed his evidence. It is submitted that period of six months, which was the preferable limit given by the Court, was approaching fast and at the fag end of it, the petitioner – defendant No. 1 has come out with application Exhibit-65 requesting production of documents, that too, after the plaintiff closed his evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that this is nothing but a delay tactics adopted by the petitioner – defendant No. 1, and therefore, it should not be encouraged. On the aforesaid submissions and the decisions relied on, it is submitted that the petition be summarily rejected. 6. Ms. A.B. Chaturvedi, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Apurva S. Vakil, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 and requested that the petition be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the appearing parties and going through the impugned order as also the documents annexed with the petition, it is undisputed that though a suit is filed in the year 2013, written statement by the petitioner – defendant No. 1 came to be filed in the month of July, 2017. It is again not disputed that at the time of filing written statement, no list of documents relied upon by the defendant in support of his case pleaded in his written statement was produced. Issues were also settled, evidence of plaintiff by way of examination-in-chief on affidavit was also tendered on 04.07.2022 and the petitioner – defendant No. 1 completed his cross-examination of the respondent No. 1 – plaintiff on 25.07.2022. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 – plaintiff filed a closing pursis on 27.07.2022. It is again not in dispute that though the examination-in-chief on affidavit of the petitioner – defendant No. 1 bears the date of 01.08.2022, it was not filed on that date but it came to be filed only on 03.09.2022, whereas an application Exhibit-65 came to be filed on 01.08.2022 before entering upon the defense by the petitioner – defendant No. 1. 8. Considering application Exhibit-65, it is clear that petitioner – defendant No. 1 sought for the permission of the Court on the ground that the copies of the original of the documents are necessary for the just decision of a case. 8. Considering application Exhibit-65, it is clear that petitioner – defendant No. 1 sought for the permission of the Court on the ground that the copies of the original of the documents are necessary for the just decision of a case. However, as coming out from the argument before the Court in support of application Exhibit-65, the petitioner – defendant No.1 has come out with the case that with a view to bring on record a new development, he seeks permission to produce those documents. 9. Now, going through the provisions made under “the Code”, more particularly, Order VIII rule 1 of “the Code”, it is clear that though it prescribes a time limit for filing written statement, it is not held to be mandatory to submit it within the time as stated therein. However, rule 1A of order VIII of “the Code” obliges the defendant to produce document on which his defense is based or he relies upon, which is in possession or power, in support of his defense, he has to enter such documents in a list and he is obliged to produce the same when the written statement is presented, further obliging him to deliver the document and copy thereof to be filed with the written statement. He is further obliged to state wherever any such document is not in possession or power of him, in whose possession or power it is. Sub-rule 3 of rule 1A though provides for an opportunity to produce the document, which ought to be produced under the rule with the leave of the Court, it can be produced to be received in evidence on his behalf at the time of hearing of the suit. 10. Considering the provisions made in Order XIII of “the Code”, it is clear that originals of the documents produced by the plaintiff along with his plaint or produced by the defendant with the written statement’s are required to be produced before settlement of issues. It is only after settlement of issues that the recording of evidence of the parties would start. It is only after settlement of issues that the recording of evidence of the parties would start. The purpose for providing production of the documents and/or copies thereof with a further obligation to produce the originals thereof, prior to the case goes for recording evidence, is to make aware all the parties appearing in the suit what case they are supposed to meet with or what case they have to plead before the Court. 11. Here in this case, not a single document, based on which petitioner – defendant No. 1 bases his defense or relies upon, produced by him at the time of filing written statement, and therefore, there is no question of production of any originals thereof at or before the settlements of issues. Not only he sought leave for production thereof belatedly, he has neither offered any explanation for the same nor shown any cause as to why at that stage, petitioner – defendant No. 1 seeks to produce those documents, which were never produced. Though written statement was filed earlier. 12. Not only that, the petitioner – defendant No. 1 has not stated that those documents were not in his possession or in whose possession those documents were there so that he could not produce. If the list Exhibit-66, which is at page 122, is seen, all the documents existed and not denied to be in his possession up to 27.03.2015, whereas he filed his written statement in July, 2017. Not a single document referred to in the list can be said to be a new development, as sought to be explained at the time of arguing the Exhibit-65 application. Since the suit is filed in the year 2013 and he filed his written statement in the year 2017, the last documents enumerated in the list is of 2015 showing that all the documents were in existence and available with him, before he filed the written statement then he was supposed to produce the same despite that he did not produce any. 13. 13. The argument that all these procedural violations should be construed liberally and a lenient view has to be taken permitting production of the documents in support of the case of a party if it does not cause any prejudice to other side is inappropriate, as here it is not a case that petitioner – defendant No. 1 has missed out any documents to be produced at the time of filing written statement. He has deliberately not produced any documents, and therefore, there is no question of taking any lenient view, permitting production thereof now after plaintiff closes his evidence, more particularly, when all were in existence and in possession of petitioner before filing of the written statement. It is not the case that though some of the documents were produced along with the written statement, certain documents were missed out or misplaced at the time of filing of the written statement and the submission of the documents so as to permit the same in view of sub-rule (3) of rule 1A of Order VIII of “the Code”. Even if a lenient view is to be taken, the party who is not deliberately producing any document at the time of filing written statement, and therefore, there is no question of producing original thereof before settlement of issues but when he attempts to produce the same, that too, after the plaintiff closes his evidence, it is for him to show that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if the documents are permitted to be received in evidence. Petitioner – defendant No. 1 cannot be heard to say that for receiving the same in evidence, the other side has to show some prejudice so as to deny the production thereof. 14. Strong reliance placed on the decision in the case of Sugandhi (supra) by the learned advocate for the petitioner – defendant No. 1 to submit that sub-rule (3) of rule 1A of Order VIII of “the Code” provides a second opportunity to produce the documents, which ought to have been produced along with the written statement, with leave of the Court. However, there cannot be any quarrel on the issue but at the same time, the said case is determined on its own facts where the party sought leave to produce certain documents showing cause that they had recently traced those documents related to the suit property and that is why they could not produce them along with the written statement. It is not clear from the said decision that the party had earlier produced any documents along with the written statement or not. Another reason to permit the production pressed into service is that it is necessary for the just determination of the case, as due to certain unavoidable circumstances, the same could not be produced by the defendants along with the written statement. However, from the said case, it is not clear that along with the written statement not a single document was produced. At the same time, it is very clear from the decision that for production thereof while seeking leave, an explanation, that too, reasonable explanation offered to grant leave to produce the same. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that even if no reasons are assigned in application seeking leave of the Court for production of the document, it would not be fatal to the case of the defendant. 15. However, in my view, second opportunity of producing documents under sub-rule (3) of rule 1A of Order VIII of “the Code” is for those, who have produced documents with written statement and for accountable reasons, either certain documents missed out or those documents were not traceable at the relevant time and found subsequently or came into existence after written statement with the list of documents is filed, as subsequent events and relevant for the fact of the case. For the person who had not produced any, at the time while written statement was filed, it may not be a second opportunity to produce the same. Once requirement for reasons for non-production is considered by the Court that clearly means that it is for few of the document and not for total noncompliance of the said sub-rule (1) of rule 1A of Order VIII of “the Code”. But the second opportunity is certainly not for those who have, despite the existence and availability of all those documents with them, did not produce it along with the written statement by a separate list. But the second opportunity is certainly not for those who have, despite the existence and availability of all those documents with them, did not produce it along with the written statement by a separate list. That second opportunity is not as of right, genuinely for explainable reasons, few documents if left out to be produced, can be produced, that too, with the leave of the Court. The Court has to be satisfied with the reasons for non-production thereof, though in existence and available with the defendant at the relevant time, in absence of any cause or explanation for non-production thereof, in my opinion, it can never be permitted, that too, after plaintiff closed his evidence. 16. Second opportunity, as submitted, is not to cover up the total default or non-compliance at the first opportunity. Otherwise, nobody will file the same at the time when written statement is submitted and after closure of evidence by a plaintiff, the defendant may seek to produce the same to surprise the plaintiff after he has disclosed his case, which is tested even by a cross-examination by the defendant himself. Considering the requirement of seeking leave on good cause being shown, it may be a second opportunity for those who availed the first opportunity, that too, with the leave of the Court if certain documents are missed out and for other reasons as enumerated hereinabove. The purpose of producing document with list along with the plaint as also written statement appears to be to make aware the parties what case they have to meet with against each other and accordingly, chalking out case or a line of defense before evidence is led. Therefore, if any party has led evidence and it is over, any attempt subsequent thereto to produce documents for the first time when defaulted at the first opportunity, without any good cause being shown, should certainly be discouraged. It is only when without those documents Court is not able to determine such case, in such exigency, it may be permissible. 17. It is only when without those documents Court is not able to determine such case, in such exigency, it may be permissible. 17. Here in the present case, not only along with the written statement, the petitioner – defendant No. 1 did not produce copies of any documents in a list along with written statement nor any originals thereof produced at or prior to settlement of issues, he waited till evidence of the plaintiff is over, he cross-examined him also and when the plaintiff filed his closure pursis, the petitioner – defendant No. 1 has come out with such application seeking leave of the Court to produce the same, that too, without offering any good cause for non-production of the same at the first available opportunity. Considering the list Exhibit-66, wherein total 21 documents are enumerated by the petitioner – defendant No. 1, all documents existed and in his possession even prior to when he filed written statement. Such an adamant attitude of the petitioner – defendant No. 1 of not producing such documents at the time when written statement is filed, he cannot be heard to say that even absence of any reason or explanation assigned in the application seeking leave of the Court to produce it under rule 1A(3) of Order VIII of “the Code”, it would not be fatal to the case. Not only that, such attitude continued while even arguing the very application seeking leave of the Court for the production of the same saying that to bring on record new development which took place, however; not a single document pertains to any new development as argued or existed even prior to his filing of the written statement. Not only that, as argued before the Court concerned, all were xerox copies, no explanation was offered for producing the same at that stage. Be that as it may, under sub-rule (1) of rule 1A of Order VIII of “the Code”, the defendant is also supposed, not only to enumerate those documents in a list but also to disclose in whose possession they are if not in his. Not doing so reflects that all the documents were in his possession and despite that no copies were produced with the list at the time when written statement is filed and no originals thereof were even produced at or before the settlement of issues. Not doing so reflects that all the documents were in his possession and despite that no copies were produced with the list at the time when written statement is filed and no originals thereof were even produced at or before the settlement of issues. Learned Judge has assigned good reasons for rejecting the application filed, such as:- (i) Petitioner – defendant No. 1 has not come out with any reason as to why at this stage such documents are produced. (ii) All documents are of the year between 2009 and 2013, and therefore, it may not be that he came to know about the existence of those documents recently. (iii) For no such application made up till now, no explanation thereof is offered as to why it could not be produced earlier, and (iv) As per submission of petitioner – defendant No. 1, there are no new developments found from those documents, which took place subsequent to the filing of his written statement or production of earlier documents. 18. The reliance placed on the decision in the case of Sugandhi (supra), there also the Supreme Court has in unequivocal terms, held that “while there is no straight-jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the Court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.” In that case, as considered by the Supreme Court, defendants had filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They also stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It is further held that it cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. All these requirements are missing in the present case, which were considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case to grant leave at a belated stage. No such reasons existed in the present case, and therefore, in my humble opinion, the decision in the case of Sugandhi (supra) will not be helpful to the petitioner – defendant No. 1 in arguing his case. 19. No such reasons existed in the present case, and therefore, in my humble opinion, the decision in the case of Sugandhi (supra) will not be helpful to the petitioner – defendant No. 1 in arguing his case. 19. The another decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner – defendant No. 1 in the case of Sathyanath and another (supra) is also not helpful to him as it reiterates what is stated in the case of Sugandhi (supra) that “the procedure is the handmaid of justice and technical hurdles should not be allowed to come in the way of Court while doing substantial justice”. Even considering the aforesaid decision, as enumerated hereinabove, it is not a case of mere procedural or technical lapse but a calculated risk is being taken and no reason or explanation is offered for the same, as required, as per the case of Sugandhi (supra) for grant of such leave to produce the same at the belated stage. 20. The submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner – defendant No. 1 that respondent No. 1 – plaintiff has failed to show any prejudice caused to deny leave to produce such documents. In my opinion, it is for the petitioner – defendant No. 1 to show that, defying all procedural technicalities and procedural aspects knowingly, it is for him to show that no prejudice will be caused, even by his noncompliance earlier, to the respondent No. 1 – plaintiff. The order of the Supreme Court in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma (supra) is reiterating the case of Sugandhi (supra) as also Sathyanath and another (supra) and therefore, it is not required to be dealt with separately. Even if interest of the respondent No. 1 – plaintiff has to be kept in mind, he can be permitted to lead additional evidence, if leave is granted by the Court to produce the documents at this stage, however, unless and until Court comes to a conclusion that he is required to be permitted to produce the same or leave is to be granted, then only such exigency will arise to safeguard the interest of the respondent No. 1 – plaintiff. But as stated hereinabove, relying on the provision as also the decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner – defendant No. 1, no such leave is required to be granted, such exigency is not to be considered at all. Precedents in respect of exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are cited by both the sides. For the principles enunciated therein, there may not be any quarrel but at the same time, once discretionary jurisdiction is exercised by the trial Court by assigning good reasons, considering all the submissions made and grounds raised, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its view, if at all it is different, I see no reason to entertain this petition. 21. In view thereof, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, below Exhibit-65 in Regular Civil Suit No. 614 of 2013, and therefore, this petition is hereby rejected.