THAYYAL AND ANR. Vs. BAGGYATHAMMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 6 of 1948 on the file of the District Court, West Tanjore. They seek to revise the order of the District Judge on an application they filed to excuse delay in filing 19 documents. The learned District Judge excused the delay in the case of 11 documents as regards which there was no opposition from the plaintiff; but he declined to excuse the delay in the case of 8 documents, namely, Nos. 12 to 19 on the list. His order is a very brief one and reads as follows:

(2.) THE relevant facts are these : Issues were framed on 15th September, 1948, and time was given for the filing of documents till 18th October, 1948. This was done under Rule 62 of the Civil Rules of Practice read with Order 13, Rule 1 which ordinarily requires the parties to produce all their documentary evidence at the first hearing of the suit. Time was extended till 2nd November, 1948. The present application was filed on 29th November, 1948, 27 days after the expiry of the time fixed. Ordinarily, an order refusing to condone the delay in filing a document is not one which is interfered with in revision.

(3.) IN Gopika Raman Roy v. Atal Singh, (1929) 56 M.L.J. 562 :, L.R. 56 IndAp 119 :, I.L.R. 56 Cal. 1003 (P.C), their Lordships of the Privy Council considered the rule of exclusion of documentary evidence under Order 13 (1)of the Civil Procedure Code observing that it only comes into operation when the: documents on which the parties rely should have been, but were not produced at the first hearing. In the present case the affidavit gives reasons why the documents could not have been produced at the first hearing. Their Lordships also made the following observation: