The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi based its decision on a comment made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others Vs. P. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706.
In this judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has given a wide and liberal interpretation of the afore mentioned provision of law while dealing with the issue of taking on record the additional document subsequent to the filing of a written statement. The relevant portion of the aforementioned decision is reproduced below:
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).”
Thus, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in its aforesaid recent judgement, reaffirmed the need to treat procedural law liberally and ordered the defendant’s additional documents to be taken into account while allowing the defendant’s application under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC, which was filed even while cross examination of Plaintiff’s Witness, PW-1, was in progress.
As a result, the court’s emphasis on fair play outweighed the necessity for a rigorous interpretation of procedural law.