ORDER : 1. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 6.10.2021 dismissed an application moved by the defendant- petitioner herein under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record memo of appeal and certain order sheets of RSA No. 574 of 2008 instituted before this Court. The order has been questioned by the defendant in this petition. 2. A suit was filed by Tej Singh plaintiff (respondent herein) seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against Roomi Ram defendant (petitioner herein) in respect of the suit land measuring 39-09-00 bighas, comprised in khata khatauni No. 44/51, 42/49, situated in Mohal Andwas, Pargana Himgiri, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba. In the alternative, a decree for possession was also prayed for. It was mentioned in paras 3 & 4 of the plaint that defendant Roomi Ram had earlier filed a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. This Civil Suit bearing No. 154 of 2001, titled as Roomi Ram versus Tej Singh & others was regarding the same suit land as involved in the present lis. That the said Civil Suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chamba vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2007. Roomi Ram’s appeal against this judgment and decree was dismissed on 14.7.2008. It was also stated in the plaint that Roomi Ram had preferred a Regular Second Appeal alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before this Court but the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was still pending and had not been adjudicated upon. It was further pleaded that this meant that the Regular Second Appeal had not been registered or entertained by this Court. Respondent/plaintiff Tej Singh also pleaded in the penultimate para of the plaint that previously instituted suit between the same parties for declaration regarding the same subject matter stood decided and no other matter regarding the same cause of action was pending between the parties in any Court. Paras 3, 4 and 11 of the plaint read as under:- “3. That defendant Roomi Ram earlier filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction vide Civil Suit No. 154/01 titled as “Roomi Ram versus Tej Singh & others, regarding the same suit land which was dismissed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Paras 3, 4 and 11 of the plaint read as under:- “3. That defendant Roomi Ram earlier filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction vide Civil Suit No. 154/01 titled as “Roomi Ram versus Tej Singh & others, regarding the same suit land which was dismissed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chamba vide judgment and decree dated 29/09/2007 and vide that judgment the present plaintiff Tej Singh is declared/found owner in possession of the suit land. Thereafter the said Roomi Ram (Present Defendant) filed an appeal before the Ld. District Judge Chamba against the said judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Chamba vide Civil Appeal No. 10/2008/07 and same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14/07/2008. 4. That defendant Roomi Ram filed a regular second appeal alongwith an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act in the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. The application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is still pending and same has not been decided yet as such appeal has not been registered or entertains. … … … 11. That no suit regarding same cause of action is pending before any Court of law or decided earlier except the present suit. However, suit for declaration of the same subject matter has been decided and detail of the said suit has already been given in para No. 3 & 4 in the plaint.” On the above submissions, the suit was instituted by Tej Singh against Roomi Ram. In his written statement, Roomi Ram denied the assertions made in the plaint. He also denied that Regular Second Appeal preferred by him before this Court had not been registered. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The matter was fixed for arguments. After hearing the submissions the case was fixed for pronouncement of order on 20.6.2019. It appears from the record that order was not announced and the matter was perhaps adjourned again for arguments. On 27.7.2019 petitioner/defendant Roomi Ram moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC with the prayer that he be allowed to place on record certified copies of order sheets dated 31.10.2008, 30.4.2010, 13.5.2010 and 1.12.2016 as well as certified copy of memorandum of Regular Second Appeal preferred by him before this Court arising out of previous litigation between the parties. It was also stated in the application that application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by Roomi Ram alongwith the Regular Second Appeal had been allowed by this Court and the said Appeal had been entertained. It was registered as RSA No. 574 of 2008 on 31.10.2008. Plaintiff Tej Singh opposed the prayer of the defendant. In his reply the plaintiff stated that defendant had adequate opportunity to lead his evidence, evidence in the matter stood closed, arguments in the matter had already been heard, matter thereafter was fixed for pronouncement of order on 20.6.2019. That the defendant intended to re-open the case by placing on record documents mentioned in the application. While opposing the defendant’s application, plaintiff also submitted that he had not appeared in the Regular Second Appeal before this Court and further that no stay order has been passed by this Court in the Regular Second Appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Court vide order dated 6.10.2021 dismissed the application observing therein that the defendant was in the know of the documents sought to be brought on record. Had he exercised due diligence the same could have been produced on record at the time of leading his evidence. The application was filed at a belated stage. For all these reasons, the prayer made by the defendant was declined. Defendant has agitated this order in this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the defendant/petitioner would submit that the documents which the petitioner wants to place on record are relevant for coming to just and proper decision of the case. That previous litigation between the parties regarding the same subject matter was still alive in form of RSA No. 574 of 2008 pending adjudication before this Court. The impugned order denying production of documents has caused prejudice to the petitioner/defendant. Learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff defended the impugned order highlighting the reasoning given there. Learned counsel also argued that application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC was not maintainable at the stage of advancing the arguments. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the relevant material on record. Sugandhi (dead) by LRs. & anr. Learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff defended the impugned order highlighting the reasoning given there. Learned counsel also argued that application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC was not maintainable at the stage of advancing the arguments. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the relevant material on record. Sugandhi (dead) by LRs. & anr. Versus P. Rajkumar, Civil Appeal No. 3427 of 2020, decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 13.10.2020 was a case where defendant's application moved under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC seeking leave of Court to produce additional documents was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and the order was confirmed by the High Court. After discerning Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, Apex Court held that if the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, the Court must lean towards doing substantial justice. Litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and Court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Relevant paras of the judgment read as under:- “8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court alongwith the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. 9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule(3).” In the instant case the approach of learned Trial Court in dismissing the application for lack of diligence on part of the defendant cannot be faulted. It is not in dispute that the evidence of the defendant was already over at the time he moved the application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC. It also becomes apparent from the record that the arguments in the Civil Suit had also been heard at one stage in the year 2019. However having observed this, it is also a fact that the order in the matter was not pronounced and the matter thereafter was repeatedly fixed for hearing of arguments. It is still at the stage of advancing of arguments. The application in question was moved by the defendant on 27.7.2019. What is sought to be produced in terms of this application is certain order sheets and memorandum of appeal in RSA No. 574 of 2008 instituted before this Court. A perusal of the reply filed by the plaintiff to the application in question makes it apparent that even the plaintiff has not disputed the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal. What he has stated there is that he has not appeared before this Court and that there is no stay order passed by this Court in the Regular Second Appeal. It also cannot be lost sight of that the plaintiff/respondent has himself averred in paragraphs 3, 4 & 11 of the plaint about the previous litigation between same parties with respect to same subject matter and his seemingly unawareness about the possibility of previous litigation between him and the defendant with respect to same subject matter being still alive in further appeal before this Court. The documents are necessary for arriving at just decision of the case. In view of the stand taken by the respondent/plaintiff in his pleadings, no prejudice will be caused to him in case the application is allowed. Considering all these factors, application moved by petitioner/defendant seeking leave to produce documents is allowed. The documents are necessary for arriving at just decision of the case. In view of the stand taken by the respondent/plaintiff in his pleadings, no prejudice will be caused to him in case the application is allowed. Considering all these factors, application moved by petitioner/defendant seeking leave to produce documents is allowed. However, respondent/plaintiff cannot be allowed to go uncompensated for the callous and negligent approach of the petitioner/defendant in moving the application at such a belated stage. Hence, application moved under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC is allowed but subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). The cost shall be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff before the Trial Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant has apprised that the matter is fixed before the learned Trial Court on 25.5.2022. Cost shall be paid by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court on 25.5.2022. 7. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25.5.2022. 8. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are confined to the present petition only and the learned trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by the same. 9. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.