ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendants feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2022, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sagwara, District-Dungarpur whereby the application preferred by petitioner-defendants under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) C.P.C., seeking leave of the court to produce sale agreement dated 31.07.1995 and ikrarnama dated 20.02.2006 was rejected. 2. The facts essential for adjudication of the writ petition are as follows:- 3. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for partition seeking permanent injunction against petitioner-defendants before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sagwara, District- Dungarpur. In the plaint dated 29.06.2020, it was stated inter alia that the petitioner No.2 is brother of respondent; petitioner No.1 is sister in law; and petitioner No.3 is his nephew. The residential plot in Khasra No.1358/2 situated at Ramgarh is in joint ownership and possession of the respondent-plaintiff and the petitioner-defendants which was purchased by petitioner No.1 and respondent on 21.03.1996 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,06,000/-. 4. After service of notices, the petitioner-defendants filed written statement with the averment that the complete consideration of the residential property was paid by them, though the disputed property was registered in the names of petitioner No.1 and the respondent-plaintiff. The trial court framed issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff and his son were examined as P.W-1 and P.W-2. At the stage when matter was fixed for evidence of the petitioner-defendants, an application dated 05.07.2022 was moved under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) seeking leave of the court to produce sale agreement dated 31.07.1995 and ikrarnama dated 20.02.2006 which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 16.08.2022. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2022, present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants submitted that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that these documents (sale agreement dated 31.07.1995 and ikrarnama dated 20.02.2006.) were not available with them but were kept with the service documents of petitioner No.2-Jagjivan Lal. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court vide order dated 16.08.2022 has rejected the application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) in a perfunctory manner, solely on the ground of delay and documents being photocopies of the original. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the following cases to fortify the submissions advanced:- 1. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the following cases to fortify the submissions advanced:- 1. Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbama & Anr. (SLP (C) No.7452/2022). 2. Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. and Anr. vs. P. Rajkumar rep. By his power agent Imam Oli (SLP (C) No.16491/2019). 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supported the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 passed by learned trial court. It was submitted that the defendants are not entitled as a matter of right to produce documents, particularly when the same does not find mention in the list of documents prepared under Order VIII Rule 1A (1); has not been produced along with the written statement. Learned counsel relied on judgments rendered by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur in the following cases:- 1. Shanti Devi vs. Ghanshyam & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6933/2022), decided on 11.05.2022. 2. Manoj Kumar vs. Gyan Chand & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9321/2022), decided on 04.07.2022. 3. Ramniwas & Ors. vs. Rameshwar & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13313/2011), decided on 11.12.2013. 7. Heard submissions advanced at bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while dealing with similar eventuality, in the case of Levaku Pedda (supra) held as under:- “We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the 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. It is well settled that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.” 9. Similarly, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sugandhi (supra) held as under:- “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. 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).” 10. Having gone through Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and above quoted precedent law, in the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons given by the trial court in its order dated 16.08.2022 (Annex.12) apart from delay is that the documents sought to be produced do not find mention in the written statement filed by the defendants and the same are only notarised photocopy of the original document without bearing the date of attestation is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned trial court at this stage was not required to pronounce about admissibility of the documents. 11. Order VIII Rule 1 A(3) of C.P.C. provides that the documents which have not been produced along with the written statement can be produced later on, only with the permission of the court. Thus, afore-quoted rule provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce a document which ought to have been produced in the court along with written statement, with the leave of the court. 12. It is a settled law that while doing substantial justice, courts should ensure that procedural violations do not adversely affect the cause of the adversary party. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of documents under Order VIII Rule 1A (3). 13. In the present case, from the perusal of the application dated 05.07.2022, it is apparent that sound reasons were furnished justifying the delay for non production of documents along with the written statement. 14. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of documents under Order VIII Rule 1A (3). 13. In the present case, from the perusal of the application dated 05.07.2022, it is apparent that sound reasons were furnished justifying the delay for non production of documents along with the written statement. 14. In view of this, court below ought to have accepted the application dated 05.07.2022 filed by the defendants seeking permission to produce the documents at a later stage. 15. The respondent-plaintiff shall be at liberty to raise all objections regarding admissibility of the documents before trial court. 16. In the result, impugned order dated 16.08.2022 passed by passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sagwara, District-Dungarpur in Civil Original Case No. 04/2020 (Khemji vs. Smt. Naval & Ors.) is set aside. The application dated 05.07.2022 filed under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sagwara, District-Dungarpur is allowed. 17. No order as to costs.