Belated production of photocopies without justifiable cause at final argument stage warrants rejection to prevent trial delay.

The petitioner (original defendant) challenged an order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, which rejected his application (Exhibit-169) to produce additional documentary evidence

The documents sought to be produced were photocopies of three receipts (Nos. 157, 055, and 187) allegedly containing writings on the backside signed by the respondents-plaintiffs

These receipts had already been produced by the plaintiffs in 2017, but without the backside writings. The petitioner filed the application at the stage of final arguments, claiming he discovered these documents only after his father’s death

The Trial Court rejected the application due to the belated stage of the trial and a previous opportunity already granted to the petitioner to produce additional documents

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in rejecting the application for production of documents at the stage of final arguments

2. Whether the rule of procedure as a "handmaid of justice" allows for the production of photocopies of private documents at the fag end of a trial without justifiable cause for delay

The court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which grants High Courts limited supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with trial court orders only in cases of manifest illegality or perversity

It also considered the procedural principle that while rules of procedure are the "handmaid of justice," they cannot be used to bypass the necessity of showing "justifiable reason" for delay, especially when discovery is sought at the final argument stage

Additionally, the court noted the evidentiary weight of photocopies of private documents versus originals

The Court observed that the suit was filed in 2014 and was at the stage of final arguments

The petitioner failed to provide a compelling reason why these documents—private receipts from 1995—were not produced earlier, particularly when the petitioner had previously been allowed to reopen his right to produce documents at Exhibit-147

The Court found the petitioner’s conduct to be "casual" and suggestive of "delay tactics" intended to derail the trial

It noted that the documents were merely photocopies and the petitioner did not clarify their source of custody

Furthermore, the High Court had previously directed the Trial Court to decide the suit by June 30, 2026, making the late introduction of evidence a potential frustration of that mandate

The court held that litigants cannot be allowed to produce documents at the "fag end" of a trial without justifiable cause, as this would prevent timely adjudication of civil suits

The impugned order dated 04.03.2025 was upheld, and the connected Civil Application for stay was disposed of