JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 23.11.2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., whereby an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC, having been filed by the petitioner-tenant for bringing on record the additional documents i.e. site plan of the dispute premises came to be dismissed, petitioner tenant has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order and thereafter, grant permission to place on record the site plan. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent landlord filed suit for eviction against the tenant qua premises comprising of shop located in house No 189/1, Jawahar Nagar, Mandi, Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P., on the ground of arrear of rent and bonafide requirement. He specifically set up a case in the rent petition that two shops on the ground floor were rented by him to the tenant in the year 1978, but he removed the partition of the shops. Landlord also claimed that sum of Rs 8000/- was being taken as rent from both the shops, but since July, 2016, no rent has been paid. Landlord in his reply categorically denied factum with regard to renting out of two shops by the landlord. He specifically claimed that one shop for monthly rent of Rs. 250/- pm, was rented out, but subsequently, such rent was enhanced to Rs. 500/-. Since rent was not being received by the landlord, tenant deposited the rent in the court below under Section 21 of the HP Urban Rent Control Act. After framing of issues, respondent-landlord led evidence, but before commencement of the evidence of the tenant, he filed application under Order 8 Rule 1 (a) CPC, seeking therein permission to place on record site plan of the disputed premises to prove internal area of each shop, however, such prayer of him came to be rejected on the ground that site plan proposed to be proved on record is of no relevance as far as controversy inter-se parties is concerned. In the aforesaid background, tenant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid impugned order. 3. Ms. In the aforesaid background, tenant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid impugned order. 3. Ms. Seema K. Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioner tenant vehemently argued that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and as same is not based upon the proper appreciation of the facts as well as law. He argued that site plan proposed to be placed on record is very much relevant for adjudication of the case because that would clearly show that only one shop was rented out to the tenant for monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. She further argued that otherwise also, aforesaid document is relevant to point out contradictions and inconsistencies in the case of the landlord. While placing reliance upon judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022 (SLP(C) No. 7452 of 2022, Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors. v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and Anr., Ms. Guleria, vehemently argued that relevant documents intended to be placed on record can be examined by the court on the basis of entire evidence to be led, but definitely relevance of such documents cannot be seen at the time of filing of the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (a) CPC. She also placed reliance upon judgment passed by Sikkim High Court in Prashant Kumar Goyal v. Smt. Sogra Khatoon and Ors, AIR 2012 Sikkim 1, to state that relevancy of the document intended to be placed on record by way of additional evidence is not to be seen at the stage of considering such application, rather in totality of evidence to be led on record by the parties to the lis. 4. Having carefully perused the aforesaid law pressed into service by Ms. Guleria, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that same has no application in the present case. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Court of Sikkim that relevancy of the document intended to be proved on record is not to be seen at the time of considering prayer for placing on record document during trial, but definitely, court is required to see whether document intended to be placed on record has some connection with the controversy or not. Most importantly, document intended to be placed on record should have been relied upon at the time of filing of the written statement. 5. In the case at hand, it is not the case of the petitioner tenant that document intended to be placed on record was in existence at the time of filing reply, but yet he failed to make mention of the same in the reply, rather document intended to be placed on record by way of filing application under Order 8 Rule 1 (a) CPC, has been prepared by tenant after completion of evidence led on record by the landlord. By way of site plan, petitioner tenant intends to prove that there was only one shop rented out to him, but such plea of him, if accepted, has no relevance in the case at hand. 6. In the instant case, though landlord has stated in the rent petition that he had rented out two shops to the tenant, but he has further clarified by stating that two shops were made into one by removing the middle wall, meaning thereby, as of today, only one shop exists on the spot. At this stage, Ms. Guleria, vehemently argued that since rent has been claimed qua two shops, site plan proposed to be placed on record may be of great relevance for adjudication of the case at hand, however this Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission for the reason that there is no dispute inter-se both the parties that as of today, only one shop exists and as per own case of the petitioner tenant, sum of Rs. 250/- p.m. was initially charged as rent for shop rented out to him, but subsequently same was increased to Rs. 500/- as has been claimed by the petitioner-tenant. Moreover, reply to the rent petition, specifically para-5, nowhere disputes factum with regard to letting out of two shops and removal of middle wall. Leaving everything aside, this court is very much in agreement with the reasoning assigned by the court while passing impugned order that document intended to be placed on record is of no relevance, especially when rent petition has been filed on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement. Leaving everything aside, this court is very much in agreement with the reasoning assigned by the court while passing impugned order that document intended to be placed on record is of no relevance, especially when rent petition has been filed on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement. There is no whisper, if any, in the reply to the petition with regard to site plan, which is now intended to be placed on record by way of an application under Order 8 Rule 1 (a) CPC. Aforesaid provision which is pari-materia to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, clearly provides that only existing documents, which on account of certain omission or bonafide mistake could not be filed/submitted earlier, can be permitted to be placed on record. Since it is own case of the petitioner tenant that he after closure of evidence of plaintiff got the site plan prepared to prove location, same cannot be taken on record. 7. Ms. Guleria, while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3427 of 2020 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) 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, argued 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, Ms. Guleria further argued that otherwise also liberal approach is required to be adopted. 8. However, having carefully perused the aforesaid judgment pressed into service by learned counsel representing the petitioners/defendants, this Court finds that the same have no application in the present case. Guleria further argued that otherwise also liberal approach is required to be adopted. 8. However, having carefully perused the aforesaid judgment 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).” 9. 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. 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, Ms. Guleria, learned Counsel representing the petitioners/tenant 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, documents intended to be placed on record by way of additional evidence was not in existence at the time of filing of reply and as such, otherwise cannot be permitted to be adduced on record by way of additional evidence. Moreover, there is no whisper that despite due diligence, petitioner/tenant failed to produce site plan 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.” 10. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition and accordingly, same is dismissed and order dated 23.11.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge-I (Senior Division) Mandi, is upheld. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.