MURGESH Vs. NARAYANSA PARASHURAMSA MAGAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner. This revision arises from the order dated 9-12-1993, passed in Original Suit No. 92 of 1992, rejecting the application made by the defendant namely LA. No.

(2.) THE Trial Court rejected the application taking the view that the stage of framing issues has finished. The evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses has already been recorded and defendants evidence is to reopen. But if the documents are allowed to be filed automatically, plaintiff will not have opportunity to meet those documents. He further found that the defendant 1 has not assigned or stated or disclosed any good or sufficient cause for not producing the said documents at the stage of rule 1 of Order 13, Civil Procedure Code. With these observations and finding, the Trial Court rejected the application and so the defendant has come up in revision.

(3.) WITHOUT going into the question whether the order amounts to case decided or not, even if I for a moment take without recording any finding, that the order amounts to case decided, even then, in my opinion revision is misconceived and not maintainable. Per se the Court below has recorded the finding that no good or sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the documents at the proper stage. This is a finding of fact. Apart from that Order 13, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, provides that all the documents or documentary evidence of every description in possession of the party and which the party desires to rely on should be filed on or before the settlement of issues. Rule 2 mandates that no documentary evidence in possession or power of the party which should have been filed or produced, but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1, shall be received at subsequent stage of the proceedings. This Rule 2 puts a bar by giving a negative mandate, directing the Court that it shall not admit any documentary evidence which has been in possession of a party or power of the party, but which has not been produced as required by Rule 1, at any stage subsequent to the stage of framing of the issues. No doubt this rider can only be opened, if a good cause is shown for non-production thereof. Whether good cause has been shown, is something within the Court's jurisdiction to decide. If the Court received any such documentary evidence, after the stage of Rule 1 proceedings or framing of the issues, the Court shall also record the reasons for taking that document on record as well as indicating that sufficient good cause has been shown.