GANGABOVI Vs. SHANKAR SEVA SAMITHI REGD TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist applicant.

(2.) The orders sought to be challenged by this revision, is order dated 3rd August, 1995, passed by Principal Munsiff, Tumkur, on an application purported to have been moved under Order 13, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Court below has allowed summoning of witnesses named in that LA. to produce the documents summoned in order to enable the defendant being cross-examined. The learned Counsel has submitted that Order 13, Rule 10 of C.P.C., does not apply to the present case. This point had been considered by the Court below and in my opinion it has rightly opined that the provisions under Order 16, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., read with Section 151 will apply and not Order 13, Rule 10 of C.P.C. The Court below has correctly taken the view that mere mention of a wrong provision of law will not make an application non-maintainable, if that application could lie under any provision. The application has rightly been held to be one under Order 16, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., and it for a moment it be taken that no order or rule does apply, but in the interest of justice and for giving a due decision, it was necessary that document be produced. The inherent powers of the Court were there to meet a situation not covered by any provision of law.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the applicant tried to urge that Order 18, Rule 17-A would apply and the application could be covered under Order 18, Rule 17-A. In my opinion this contention of the learned Counsel is without any substance. Order 18, Rule 17-A of C.P.C., deals with production of evidence not previously known, which could not earlier be produced despite due diligence. It means, it relates to the evidence in possession of the party or discovered by a party, but which could not be produced earlier because inspite of due diligence it was not within the knowledge of the party at the time when the evidence was recorded or it could not be produced inspite of due diligence at the relevant time that is the time when the party pleaded it or had lend other evidence.