Judgment:
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. Prayer made in this application is to hear the Civil Revision at an early date.
2. Since respondents could not be served through ordinary process, they were served by way of substituted service. Despite service, none has come forward to represent them. Considering that the suit for recovery of amount filed by the petitioner Bank was stayed at the motion hearing, the Civil Revision is taken on board. Counsel heard.
3. This Civil Revision is directed against order dated 5.9.1994 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Panipat dismissing an application filed by the petitioner to prove the statement of account showing debit balance of loanee as also the power of attorney issued by the bank in favour of P.K. Mehra and the sanction order.
4. Petitioner bank had granted cash assistance to respondent No. 1 for the purchase of a bus to the tune of Rs. 2,45,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 stood guarantor for the loan. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 failed to deposit the instalment in time and also infringed the terms and conditions of the loan. Petitioner alleged that the respondent had in violation of the hypothecation, sold the bus to respondent No. 3 without the consent of the petitioner. Petitioner thus filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,90,253/-. The suit was filed by P.K. Mehra, the then Manager. The bank led its evidence and examined K.K. Gulati, PW-1 and R. K. Malik, PW-2 to prove the terms and conditions of the loan. Evidence of the bank was closed on 18.1.1993 by order of the Court. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, it was realised that inadvertently the statement of account showing debit balance of Rs. 2,90,253 of the loanee on the date of filing of the suit, the General Power of Attorney of the bank in favour of P.K. Mehra and the sanction order, had not been got exhibited. It is the case of the petitioner that these documents had been filed along with the plaint but the counsel failed to get the same exhibited. In order to prove these documents, the petitioner moved an application for permission to prove the documents by way of additional evidence but the same has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 5.9.1994. Hence, this civil revision.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents were already on record and if by inadvertence, the same have not been exhibited, it amounted only to procedural irregularity and the trial Court ought to have allowed the petitioner to cure it. I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence are formal documents and are necessary to prove the amount of loan and the authority of the Manager to file the suit. If additional evidence is not allowed, the suit would fail on technical grounds. A substantive right cannot be allowed to be defeated on account of procedural irregularity which is curable. Time and again, it has been held by the Apex Court that rules of procedure are meant to be hand-maid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused relief merely because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The provision of Order XVIII Rule 17-A,CPC cannot be interpreted in a manner which may defeat cause of justice for any negligence on the part of a party particularly when the opposite party can be compensated with costs.
6. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Trial Court shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence. Respondents shall, of course, be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal.