JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Munsif-XIII, Ranchi in Title (Eviction) Suit no. 22 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner / defendant for bringing on record some additional documentary evidence and to recall the D.W.-14, the defendant himself for further examination with a view to prove the aforesaid documents and has been partly rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order has submitted that the documents, sought to be proved, were not in possession of the petitioner and same was filed in Title Suit No. 71 of 2005, pending between the same parties. 3. It is further submitted that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are important documentary evidence to prove the stand of defendant in eviction suit. Learned court below has recorded an erroneous finding that the application filed by the defendant / petitioner for adducing additional documentary evidence and recall for further examination is motivated with further delay the trial of the case. There is no whisper in the impugned order that at any stage of trial, due to conduct of the petitioner, it has got delayed. Although, the suit was pending since 2005, the respondent / plaintiff himself was responsible for delay. 4. It is further submitted that mere delay, which is beyond the control of the parties, cannot be used as an axe to cut the defence and obstruct to the cause of justice. The learned trial court has not only partially rejected the application of the petitioner / defendant subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-, but also closed the avenue of justice forever. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be interfered with and is liable to be quashed and set aside and petitioner may be granted opportunity of leading evidence in his defence, as sought for. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating inter alia that the petitioner is habitual of filing frivolous and untenable applications, one after other only to get the said suit lingered and also taking adjournments on frivolous grounds, which led the instant suit pending for more than 12 years. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating inter alia that the petitioner is habitual of filing frivolous and untenable applications, one after other only to get the said suit lingered and also taking adjournments on frivolous grounds, which led the instant suit pending for more than 12 years. It is very much clear from perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-7) that two applications dated 08.06.2017 and 13.06.2017 were filed on behalf of defendant / petitioner have been disposed of. The application dated 08.06.2017 as contained in Annexure-4 was filed by the defendant / petitioner for recall of D.W.-14 i.e. defendant /petitioner himself, which was rejected on the ground that the plea taken by the petitioner were not based on true statements, rather it was tending to misuse the process of law to delay the disposal of suit, whereas the application dated 13.06.2017 has been partially allowed, even the said application was without merit. 6. It is further submitted that after examination of D.W.-14 / the petitioner, so many adjournments were given and finally he was discharged on 03.06.2017 and the suit was fixed for argument. Another application for recall of defendant for further examination for proving some documents was again filed on 08.06.2017 itself (Annexure-5 to the writ application). 7. It is further alleged that the documents sought for proving in this case are also not relevant and beyond the subject matter of the present eviction proceeding, particularly when the suit for Specific Performance of Contract being Title Suit No. 71 of 2005 is pending between the parties. It is alleged that the agreement for sale proposed to be proved by the defendant / petitioner marked as Exhibit-A & B are forged and fabricated documents and on the strength of those documents, the petitioner cannot claim any right, title and interest in the property. 8. The learned trial court has considered every aspect of the case, particularly the conduct of the defendant in adopting dilatory tactics, has rightly passed the order, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity and this writ petition is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 9. I have given anxious consideration to the points of argument raised on behalf of the sides nd perused the record along with impugned order. 9. I have given anxious consideration to the points of argument raised on behalf of the sides nd perused the record along with impugned order. It appears that Title Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2005 was instituted by one Hira Lal Vishwakarma (respondent herein), stating inter alia that the land and house standing over the Plot No. 276, 277 and Sub-Plot No. 276 / C-2 and 277 / C-1, measuring an area of 2 Katha, 6 Chhatak and 36 Sq. Fts. corresponding holding No. 1894 within Ward No. 7 situated at Village – Hehal, Itki Road, P.S. – Sukhdeonagar, District – Ranchi as fully described to the Schedule of the Plaint was purchased by the plaintiff through the registered sale deed bearing no. 8125 dated 15.07.2004 from rightful owner Smt Narendrajeet Kaur, Wife of Sardar Gurnam Singh, The name of plaintiff was mutated before the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi vide Mutation Case No. 2271/2004-05 as also in the office of Municipal Corporation, Ranchi and rent / tax is being paid by the plaintiff. 10. According to plaintiff / respondent the suit property was earlier let out by the vendor of the plaintiff in favour of defendant / present petitioner on month to month tenancy that was brought to the notice of plaintiff subsequent to the purchase. Therefore, he requested to pay Rs.1,000/- monthly rent from defendant which he promised to pay but he use to avoid on one pretext and another to pay the rent. The plaintiff in the month of December, 2004 requested to the defendant / petitioner to vacate the suit property as he requires the same in good faith for his bonafide use and occupation. Subsequent request was also made on 01.04.2005, but threat was extended by defendant of dire consequences. On 03.04.2005, the defendant along with his three sons entered into the work shop of the plaintiff and conveyed repeated threats to the plaintiff’s son which was reported at Sukhdeonagar Police Station. At last, having no means, the present suit for eviction of the defendant was filed on the ground of bonafide personal need seeking relief for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property along with cost of the suit. 11. It further appears that the defendant has appeared and filed his written statement stating inter alia that the suit of the plaintiff is based upon false and frivolous statements. 11. It further appears that the defendant has appeared and filed his written statement stating inter alia that the suit of the plaintiff is based upon false and frivolous statements. It is totally false that the suit premises was purchased by the plaintiff from Smt. Narendrajeet Kaur, Wife of Sardar Gurunam Singh. It was contended by defendant that one Sardar Charan Singh executed agreement in favour of father of the defendant on 15.11.1986 and after his demise namely, Sardarin Gurdeep Kaur acknowledged the previous agreement executed by her husband after receiving the amount of Rs.5,001/- and subsequent agreement executed by Sardarin Gurdeep Kaur, who also received a token amount of Rs.2,001/- and possession of the defendant was confirmed, as such, purchase of the suit premises by the plaintiff as alleged is absolutely based on forged document executed by any fictitious person. 12. The defendant was never inducted by the plaintiff as tenant nor the plaintiff acquired any right, title and interest in the suit property and his claim for personal need and eviction of defendant as an owner is not maintainable. All the allegations against the defendants as alleged in the plaint are false and manipulated averments. The defendant has already filed Title Suit No. 71 of 2005 for specific performance of contract, which is still pending before the court of learned Munsif, Ranchi. So the question of eviction / vacation of the defendant at the instance of plaintiff does not arise and suit of the plaintiff is fit to be dismissed. 13. It further transpires that during course of trial all the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of plaintiff were adduced and on behalf of defendant / petitioner, 14 witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged. The present petitioner is D.W.-14 and the case was fixed for hearing of arguments. 14. In the meantime, an application dated 08.06.2017 was filed by the present petitioner / defendant, stating inter alia that due to sheer mistake, documents of the defendants were not marked / exhibited because of the fact that there was another Title Suit vide Title Suit No. 71 of 2005 pending before the court of Munsif, Ranchi which has now been transferred in the present court and all the documents of the defendant were lying in the box of the court of Munsif, Ranchi with the record of Title Suit No. 71 of 2005. It was alleged that the petitioner applied for certified copy of the documents on 26.04.2017, which was received by him and delivered on 03.06.2017, meanwhile, the petitioner / defendant was examined and cross-examined and discharged, but documents could not be brought on record. It is also urged that there was some delay due to petitioner’s engagement in attending a marriage of very close relative. Therefore, it was prayed that D.W.-14 may be re-called, so that the original documents / certified copy may be proved and marked exhibit. 15. Another application dated 13.06.2017 (Annexure-5) was filed along with list of documents as many as 16 documents, out of which Exhibit-1 & 2 were certified copy of agreement dated 15.11.86 and 15.01.88 and other several documents. 16. Another application dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure-6) was filed for obtaining leave of the Court for adducing documentary evidence. 17. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned trial court has observed that the plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 06.10.2012 and the record was fixed for evidence of defendant. The defendant had filed list of 46 witnesses and vide order dated 06.07.2021, he was directed to file examination-in-chief of all remaining D.W.s. Meanwhile, the case record was transferred to this Court on 28.03.2017, which was placed before the concerned trial court on 01.04.2017. Again, defendant was directed to file examination-in-chief of remaining witnesses. Thereafter on 15.04.2017, one witness was examined, cross-examined and discharged. Further, more opportunity was given to the defendant, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-, to produce all his witnesses. Ultimately, the defendant was examined as D.W.-14 on 03.05.2017, cross-examined and discharged on 03.06.2017 and on the prayer of learned defence counsel, the evidence was closed and case was fixed for argument. 18. While rejecting both the above-mentioned applications filed on behalf of defendant / petitioner, the learned trial court observed that although it is specifically pleaded by the defendant that the documents were obtained by him after completion of his examination, but the record shows that the certified copy were delivered to him on 06.05.2017 while his examination-in-chief and cross-examination was going on, but he deliberately did not adduce those documents before conclusion of his evidence. Moreover, the certified copies were also not filed. Moreover, the certified copies were also not filed. The learned trial court found that application dated 08.06.2017 filed by the defendant / petitioner is nothing but misuse of process of law filed with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. Hence, the same was rejected at the cost of Rs.1,000/-. 19. Another petition for marking certain documents as exhibits dated 13.06.2017 is concerned, first two documents are certified copy of agreement dated 15.11.1986 and certified copy of agreement dated 15.01.1988 were marked Exhibit-A & B subject to condition that the defendant has explained as to why the original could not be brought on record, at the time of argument, only then, the instant documents have to be relied upon and the documents are marked exhibit with objection of the plaintiff, who will be at liberty to challenge the relevancy of the document at the time of argument. 20. This portion of the impugned order does not satisfy the judicial conscience. The relevancy of the document is to be decided first before marking the same as exhibit. Moreover, if the secondary evidence is led, it must be explained prior to its marking exhibit as evidence, giving opportunity to the concerned party to rebut the same. 21. Under aforementioned circumstances, unless and until the defendant is provided an opportunity to lead evidence entitling him to lead secondary evidence of a document or to produce the original itself for consideration of the Court giving a reasonable opportunity to the opposite party for its rebuttal, a general direction cannot be passed to consider all these contested issues at the time of hearing argument. As a natural consequence, if the proper and reasonable explanation is advanced at the time of hearing argument by the party seeking additional evidence to be taken, the court is bound on the principle of ex debito justitiae to take secondary evidence or to produce the original document itself. Therefore, putting embargo in the shape of conditional order while marking exhibit-A & B produced on behalf of petitioner / defendant is not in accordance with law of evidence. 22. In my considered view in the aforementioned circumstances, the learned trial court must have taken into consideration the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. which runs as under:- 17. Therefore, putting embargo in the shape of conditional order while marking exhibit-A & B produced on behalf of petitioner / defendant is not in accordance with law of evidence. 22. In my considered view in the aforementioned circumstances, the learned trial court must have taken into consideration the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. which runs as under:- 17. Court may recall and examine witness - The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. 23. It is settled law that the rules of procedure are the handmaid to advance the cause of justice and not to put a resistance in the cause of justice. 24. The concerned trial court has opened avenue in its discretion for leading evidence by the defendant, therefore, his prayer for recall as a witness could not be declined. 25. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find merit in this writ petition, which is hereby allowed. 26. However, considering the unusual delay in disposal of the suit, the petitioner is directed to conclude his evidence within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order before the trial court, failing which appropriate order may be passed by the concerned trial court. 27. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial court for information and needful.