CHANDRALOK HOUSING SOCIETY, BARODA Vs. BHARAT CONSTRUCTION, BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is filed against an order below Exhibit 191 in Special Civil Suit No. 144/1973 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Baroda on July 20, 1992. By the said order, the learned Judge rejected the application filed under Order 13, Rule 2 for production of documents.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that good cause was shown for the satisfaction of the court and t-he court has committed an error of jurisdiction in not granting the application. He further submitted that since the material irregularity is within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, same requires to be interfered with and the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that in the application Exhibit 191, it was stated by Advocate for the petitioner that the documents were found out only on the day on which the application was made, i.e. on April 6, 1992 and they were relevant and material documents for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in the suit. He, therefore, submitted that the trial court should have allowed the said application by granting the prayer. He also submitted that the documents are of genuine nature and if the defendant will not be allowed to produce those documents, irreparable prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Relying on a number of decisions, he submitted that even if there was some fault, negligence or lethargy on the part of the defendant, he should not be penalised in the larger interest of justice and that it is not only the power but the duty of the court to do substantial justice to both the parties to the proceedings.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the opponent, on the other hand, submitted that the order passed by the trial court was clearly in accordance with law. He submitted that undoubtedly, the trial court possess jurisdiction and discretion either to allow or to refuse production of documents at a later stage. When the said exercise has been undertaken by the trial court, even if there is error of law, the said error cannot be corrected in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the court has jurisdiction to reject the application which has been made and therefore, the order is clearly in accordance with law.