Having considered the material on record, in the light of the facts narrated supra, it is discernible that the petitioners were diligent in bringing the document dated 02.08.1989 on record by moving one Application or the other. Though the respondents say that the document has no evidentiary value, but the fact remains that the said aspect requires adjudication at the hands of the Court. It is not in dispute that the agreement of sale dated 02.08.1989 was listed in O.S.No 234 of 2008, which came to be dismissed for default in 2012 and subsequently, at the instance of the petitioners, the suit was restored to file and they had an opportunity to seek return of the document, which was not marked in O.S.No. 234 of 2008. It is also not in dispute that, as a matter of fact, the said document was made available to the petitioners only on 16.08.2016 and in three days thereafter, I.A.No. 805 of 2016 came to be filed. In those circumstances, the reasons explained by the petitioners for not filing the document on record earlier are justified. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Junior Civil Judge erred in dismissing I.A. No. 805 of 2016. Hence, the order dated 07.09.2016 deserves to be set aside. However, since the petitioners have approached the Court almost eight years after the suit was filed, to meet the ends of justice, this Court feels it appropriate to subject the petitioners to certain terms.
