' SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, J.---During the pendency of the suit for possession for the issuance of perpetual injunction petitioners-defendants got exhibited original sale deeds Exh.D1 to Exh.D3 and subsequently moved an application under Order XIII Rule 9, C.P.C. With a prayer that the original registered sale-deeds be allowed to be withdrawn with permission to place on record certified copies thereof.
2. This application was resisted by the respondents- plaintiffs on the grounds that as the suit is still pending and if the documents got exhibited by the petitioners- defendants are allowed to be withdrawn it will create complication as petitioners-defendants actually were trying to create difficulties and to complicate the proceedings between the parties before the learned trial court.
The learned trial court vide order dated 18-11-2006 dismissed the application of the petitioners- defendants. Feeling aggrieved by that order petitioners-defendants filed civil revision before the learned Additional District Judge who also vide impugned order dated 6-4-2007 dismissed the civil revision. Now the petitioners-defendants have approached this Court with the same prayer through the writ petition in hand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants contends that although there was no legal requirement as certified copies of the original sale-deeds could have been got exhibited but the original document were brought on record vide Exh.D1 to Exh.D3 and subsequently under Order XIII, Rule 9, C.P.C. Was moved with a prayer that original be returned after placing its certified copies on the record which application was dismissed vide order dated 18-11-2006 upheld by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 6-4-2007. In support of his contention learned counsel referred proviso annex to Order XIII Rule 9(b), C.P.C. Whereby it _was permissible for the trial court to return the original document -placing its certified copy on the record at any time earlier to the disposal of the suit. At the end it was prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the- Orders passed by both the courts below be set aside and the application moved by the petitioners-defendants be allowed with a direction to the learned trial court to return the original documents i,e, Exh.D1 to Exh.D3 after placing its certified copies thereof.
4. Respondent No,1 present in Court reiterated the contentions raised in their reply before the courts below.
5. Arguments heard and record perused:
6. Under Order XIII, Rule 9, C.P.C. It has specifically been provided-- "9. Return of admitted documents.---(1) Any person, whether a party to the suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded under Rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same,
(a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of and
(b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed when the Court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred, or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of: ' Provided that a document may be returned at any time earlier than that prescribed by this rule if the person applying therefore delivers to the proper officer a certified copy to be substituted for the original and undertakes to produce the original if required to do so: ' Provided also that no document shall be returned which by force of the decree, has become wholly void or useless.
7. A perusal of the above mentioned proviso annex to Rule 9(b), C.P.C. It is discretionary with the trial court to return the documents at any time even earlier to the disposal of the suit after placing certified copies thereof and with the undertaking to produce the original as and when required by the court of law. Both the courts below in the circumstances committed material irregularity rather illegality as placing of original documents (Exh.D1 to Exh.D3) instead its copies will not prejudice the case of either side and if at any time subsequent to the return of those documents it is requisitioned by the trial court it, could have been produced or if necessary certain restrictions can be imposed against the party requiring its return like submission of the same as and when required by the court during trial or further use of those documents derogatory to the rights of the opposite party as required in accordance with the facts of each case.
8. It has consistently been held by this Court as well as by the learned apex Court of the country that while interpreting any provision of statute, discretionary in nature the courts are supposed to exercise these discretionary powers taking into consideration the principle of beneficial interpretation of statute i,e, leaning in favour of or facilitating the subject.
9. In view of the above while allowing this writ petition the orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the application moved by the petitioners-defendants is allowed with a direction that after placing certified copies of the documents (Exh.D1 to Exh.D3) original be returned to the petitioners-defendants with an undertaking that at any subsequent stage of the trial the learned trial Court requires production of the original sale-deeds (Exh.D1 to Eh.D3) the petitioners- defendants shall produce the same.