HEMENDRA CHAUDHARY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision, the defendant revisionist has challenged the order dated 16-6-92 passed by Civil Judge, Nainital allowing the application of plaintiff-opposite party for admitting in evidence documents filed by him at a late stage of the suit, when even arguments were over in the case.

(2.) This revision is not maintainable. No revision lies against an order allowing application for producing documentary evidence which was not filed at appropriate stage in accordance with Order 13, Rule 1, C.P.C. It is not a 'case which has been decided' for the purpose of Section 115, C.P.C. This view of mine is supported by a decision of this Court in the case of Kailash Singh v. M/s. Agarwal Export Corporation, 1984 ALJ 30.

(3.) I am also of the opinion that analogy of cases in respect of adducing of additional evidence in appeal under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. can be extended to the cases where the trial Court allows production of documentary evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. Under both the provisions the production of evidence at a late stage of litigation can be permitted.In the case of Smt. Shanti Kaur v. Smt. Haseen Jahan Begum, 1976 (2) All LR 694, this Court held that an order passed on application permitting additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. is not a case decided. An earlier decision of this Court in the case of Devi Singh v. Brij Basi, 1975 (1) All LR 372 was followed by learned single Judge in deciding the case of Smt. Shanti Kaur v. Smt. Haseen Jahan (supra).