https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462686 Delay in filing additional documents is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to refuse their production when their relevance can be tested in evidence. The trial court and High Court were found to have erred in shutting out the documents altogether under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, because procedural rules should advance justice rather than defeat it. The proper response to delay is ordinarily to impose costs, not to deny a party the opportunity to place material on record. The defendants were therefore entitled to produce the additional documents, and the orders refusing that opportunity were set aside. en-us Tue, 17 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2025 20:31:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462686 Delay in filing additional documents is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to refuse their production when their relevance can be tested in evidence. The trial court and High Court were found to have erred in shutting out the documents altogether under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, because procedural rules should advance justice rather than defeat it. The proper response to delay is ordinarily to impose costs, not to deny a party the opportunity to place material on record. The defendants were therefore entitled to produce the additional documents, and the orders refusing that opportunity were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462686