for being substituted for the original with a certified copy, if a request is made by the party to the suit and in case of any other person, an ordinary copy which has been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order VII, and undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so. Apart from this specific provision in law, rule of prudence and the paramount consideration namely the interest of justice was required to be borne in mind by the learned Judge of the Family Court. Thus, there was no reason for the Court to deal with unwarranted aspects as the observations in the impugned order would indicate. It is not the case that the application was filed on the same day and the order was also sought on the same day. The simple application was however kept pending for a substantial time. The observations as made in respect of the conduct of the Advocate ought not to have been made, considering the facts of the case as admittedly the application in question was made as far back on 30 January 2016. The judicial duty cast on the Court is to dispense justice and in the course of dispensation of justice, applications of the parties to be considered as per law and appropriate orders are required to be passed in consonance with the well established procedure and the legal provisions. The impugned order shows that these basic facets are completely overlooked in rejecting the application.
