ORDER : By way of instant civil revision petition filed under Section 115, read with Section 151 CPC, challenge has been laid to order dated 03.09.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Solan, in Case No. 374 of 2013, filed by respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter, as ‘plaintiff’) under the Fatal Accident Act, seeking therein compensation on account of injuries allegedly suffered by him during the physical test conducted by the petitioners (hereinafter, as ‘defendants’) for appointment to the post of fireman. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that plaintiff filed a case under Section 2 of the Fatal Accident Act, seeking therein compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in his left leg causing permanent partial disability. Plaintiff claimed that he sustained injuries on 27.04.2010 during his physical test for the post of fireman under Municipal Corporation Chandigarh. Plaintiff claimed that while he was asked to appear for rope climbing test, the rope broke down, as a consequence of which, he fell down and suffered injuries. 3. Defendants by way of filing written statement denied the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff and claimed that no injury, if any, was ever received by him during physical test. Defendant also claimed that entire physical test was video-graphed and copy of CD is attached alongwith reply. However, order impugned in the instant proceedings reveals that no CD was ever attached along with the reply. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, court below framed issues on 26.06.2013, whereafter, plaintiff led his evidence and concluded his entire evidence on 09.06.2017. Defendants also concluded their evidence on 02.06.2018 and matter was listed for final arguments. However, at the stage of final arguments, defendants filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, seeking therein permission to lead the additional evidence. Defendants claimed in the application that in written statement filed on 08.05.2013, it has been asserted that entire physical test at Police Line Sector-26,Chandigarh on 27.04.2010 for appointment of fireman in M.C. Chandigarh, was videographed under electronic surveillance, however, due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake, copy of CD could not be attached with the written statement. Defendants claimed in the application that in written statement filed on 08.05.2013, it has been asserted that entire physical test at Police Line Sector-26,Chandigarh on 27.04.2010 for appointment of fireman in M.C. Chandigarh, was videographed under electronic surveillance, however, due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake, copy of CD could not be attached with the written statement. In the aforesaid application defendants further claimed that plaintiff had appeared for physical test having chest number P-76 and it is clearly visible in the videography conducted at the time of interview that no such incident of rope breading ever took place. Defendants further claimed that plaintiff had hired a private firm namely ‘Yaadein’, for the purpose of videography of the physical test conducted from 25th April, 2010 to 13th May, 2010, to whom, payment of Rs. 79,500/- was made vide sanction order dated 09.09.2010. Defendants claimed that Video/CD prepared by the aforesaid firm along with bills, are required to be placed on record. While refuting the aforesaid averments contained in the application having been filed by the defendants, plaintiff claimed that at no point of time, physical test conducted for appointment to the post of fireman, was videographed and application in question, has been filed with a view to fill up the lacunas by bringing on record certain manipulated evidence. Plaintiff specifically denied that defendants on account of bonafide mistake and despite due diligence, failed to produce the CD at the first instance. Learned court below having taken note of the aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, dismissed the application on the ground that since CD sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence, was very much in the possession of the defendants at the time of filing the written statement, it cannot be said that despite due diligence, they failed to submit the same. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by learned court below, defendants have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and allow the application filed by them under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no force in the submission of Mr. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no force in the submission of Mr. Naman Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioners/defendants that since copy of CD sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence stood attached with the written statement, learned court below ought to have allowed the application. 5. Bare perusal of the record, especially order impugned in the instant proceedings, clearly reveals that though defendants repeatedly claimed that it had annexed copy of CD alongwith written statement, but such claim of it, stands falsified on account of averments made in the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, wherein, it has been categorically stated that due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake, copy of CD could not be attached with the written statement. Once, defendants in its application itself admitted that copy of CD alongwith written statement was not attached, it cannot be allowed to state, at this stage, that since copy of CD stood attached with the written statement, court below had no option, but to dismiss the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC. Otherwise also, it is not understood that once copy of CD sought to be adduced on record by way of additional evidence, stood attached with the written statement, where was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the defendants to file application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, seeking therein permission to lead additional evidence. Interestingly, application Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC came to be filed at the fag end of the trial. No effort ever came to be made on behalf of the defendants to file application, seeking therein permission to lead additional evidence after framing of issues or after conclusion of evidence of the plaintiff, by which time, it had come in the notice of defendants that video allegedly made at the time of physical test is not on record. Interestingly, defendants’ witnesses in their examination-in-chief, though claimed that entire physical test was videographed and copy of CD is attached with the written statement, but as has been taken note hereinabove, no such copy of CD was ever attached with the written statement. DW-2, Sh. Makhan Singh during his cross-examination recorded on 27.11.2017 admitted that he did not see any CD on the case file. DW-2, Sh. Makhan Singh during his cross-examination recorded on 27.11.2017 admitted that he did not see any CD on the case file. Most importantly, no question with regard to placing on record copy of CD along with written statement ever came to be put to the plaintiff during his cross-examination recorded on 19.04.2014. Though, Mr. Naman Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioners/defendants vehemently argued that CD sought to be placed on record would help learned court below for adjudicating the case in most effective manner, but since, no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered in the application for not placing the CD on record despite same being in possession of the defendants, prayer made on their behalf by way of application filed Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, rightly came to be dismissed. Mr. Naman Jain, has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3427 of 2020 (arising out of S.L.P. © No. 16491 of 2019) titled Sugandhi (dead) by LRs & Anr. vs. P. Raj Kumar Rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli, decided on 13.10.2020, to claim that since there is no straight jacket formula to accede to prayer made by way of application filed Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, seeking therein permission to place on record additional documents, this Court for effective and proper adjudication of the case can always accept prayer made on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. While placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1262 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (crl.) No.131 of 2006), titled State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan, decided on 12.08.2008, Mr. Jain further argued that otherwise also liberal approach is required to be adopted in the cases filed/preferred by Government because in Govt. department files travel through desk to desk. 6. However, having carefully perused the aforesaid judgments pressed into service by learned counsel representing the petitioners/defendants, this Court finds that the same have no application in the present case. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sugandhi Devi’s case supra, has categorically held that Order 8, sub-rule (3), provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents, which ought to have been produced in the Court along with the written statement, with the leave of the Court, but discretion conferred upon the Court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While noticing that there is no straight jacket formula, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that court considering such prayer, can allow the same on a good cause being shown by the defendant. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under: “8. Sub-rule(3) of Rule 1A of Order 8 of CPC, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents, which ought to have been produced in the Court along with 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. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).” 7. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, no good cause for not placing the CD along with written statement, at the first instance, ever came to be placed on record, rather pleadings as set up in the written statement and application filed Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC are contradictory. On the one hand, it has been claimed that CD was filed along with the written statement, but on the other hand, while filing application filed Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, it has been claimed that on account of bonfide mistake, CD could not be attached with the written statement. 8. Similarly, this Court finds that second judgment in State (NCT of Delhi)’ case supra, pressed into service by learned counsel representing the petitioners/defendants, has no application for the reasons that same was passed in a case where question was with regard to delay in filing the proceedings. Since there was delay in filing the petition by Govt. 8. Similarly, this Court finds that second judgment in State (NCT of Delhi)’ case supra, pressed into service by learned counsel representing the petitioners/defendants, has no application for the reasons that same was passed in a case where question was with regard to delay in filing the proceedings. Since there was delay in filing the petition by Govt. Hon’ble Apex Court made an observation that expression ‘sufficient cause’ should be considered with pragmatism, justice or liberal approach rather than technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every days’ delay as far as cases filed by the State Government is concerned. Though, Mr. Jain, learned Counsel representing the petitioners/defendants placed heavy reliance upon aforesaid observation made Hon’ble Apex Court, but as has been noticed hereinabove, observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court is in altogether different context, whereby it was dealing with the petition filed after inordinate delay. In the case at hand, CD sought to be adduced on record by way of additional evidence, was very much in the possession of the petitioners/defendants, as has been claimed, but yet same never came to be filed along with the written statement. Moreover, there is no whisper that despite due diligence, petitioners/defendants failed to produce CD at the first instance. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “14. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice- oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether cases require adjustment and should authorize the officers to take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants.” 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition and accordingly, same is dismissed. order dated 03.09.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Solan, in Case No. 374 of 2013, is upheld. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.