MOHAMMED YOUSUF Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS BY THE DEFENDANT IN O. S. NO. 1926 OF 1987 CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED BY XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, ON AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

(2.) THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 8, RULES 1 AND 2, FOR PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AS DETAILED IN THE SAID APPLICATION was SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED INTO AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 8, RULE 1-A (3) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CPC. THE SAID APPLICATION HAS BEEN rejected BY THE TRIAL COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT HAS NO POWER TO allow THE DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED along WITH THE WRITTEN STATEMENT. ORDER 8, RULE 1-A (3) READS AS FOLLOWS. "a DOCUMENT WHICH OUGHT TO BE PRODUCED IN COURT BY THE defendant UNDER THIS RULE, BUT, IS NOT SO PRODUCED SHALL NOT, without THE LEAVE OF THE COURT, BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE ON HIS behalf AT THE HEARING OF THE SUIT". FROM THE READING OF THIS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT AT ITS DISCRETION may ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED FOR PRODUCTION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS. IN THE instant CASE, THE TRIAL COURT REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT (PETITIONER HEREIN) REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR THE delay IN PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS AS THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED ALONG with THE WRITTEN STATEMENT. SECTION 15 (1) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002 (ACT 22 OF 2002) READS AS FOLLOWS. "the PROVISIONS OF RULES 1, 1-A, 8-A, 9 AND 10 OF ORDER 8 OF THE first SCHEDULE AS SUBSTITUTED OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, INSERTED OR omitted BY SECTION 18 OF THIS ACT AND BY SECTION 9 OF THE CODE OF civil PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002, SHALL NOT APPLY TO A written STATEMENT FILED AND PRESENTED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT of SECTION 18 OF THIS ACT AND SECTION 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL procedure (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002". FROM THE READING OF THIS SECTION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT was FILED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF SECTION 18 OF THE AMENDMENT act, 2002 (ACT 22 OF 2002) AND SECTION 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002.

(3.) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE in FACT HE HAS FILED THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN THE YEAR 1988. THIS FACT IS not DISPUTED BY THE OTHER SIDE. IF THAT IS SO, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION extracted ABOVE, ORDER 8, RULE 1-A HAS NO APPLICATION SO AS TO REJECT THE application FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE GROUND OF DELAY IN PRODUCING the DOCUMENTS. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED by THE COURT BELOW IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED.