KAILASH SINGH Vs. AGARWAL EXPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's application it revision directed against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Mirzapur dated 3 -8 -1982 allowing an application of the plaintiff for permission to file certain papers after the framing of the issues in the case. The impugned order reads as follows:

(2.) IT seems to me that the order does not amount to a 'case decided' nor does it call for an interference in exercise of this Court's power under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant placed strong reliance on Mahanth Som Prakash Das v. Sri Udasin Panchayati Akahara Aara and others (supra) Ram Nath Singh and others v. Brij Kishore Singh and others : A.I.R. 1980 Pat. 160, Food Corporation of India v. Birendra Nath Dhar (supra) and Nanu Ram and others v. Vardichand and another : A.I.R. 1978 Raj. 138 to submit that an order passed not strictly in accordance with the provisions of Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, calls for an interference under Section 115 of the Code. In Mahanth Som Prakash Das v. Sri Udasin Panchayati Akhara Bara and others (supra) the Court below refused to entertain certain documents filed by the plaintiff. That order was reversed by the High Court, and it was held that the Explanation added to sub -section (2) of Section 115 C.P.C. widened the scope of the word 'case' as in that section with great respect to the learned Judge, I have, in the case of Manohar Lal v. Valertor (Cawnpore) Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra) and British India Corporation Ltd., Kanpur and another v. G.S. Nigam (Civil Revision No. 7 of 1982, decided on 18 -4 -1983) taken the view that the Explanation added to sub -section (2) of Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, has not enlarged the scope of the word 'case,' and the meaning of that word as explained by the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above has not undergone any change by the amendment made in Section 115. The decisions in Parsuram Dubey v. Mahanth Laxman Das and others : A.I.R. 1974 Pat. 278 and Ramgulam Choudhary and others v. Nawin Choudhary and others : A.I.R. 1972 Pat. 499 which have been dissented from in Som Prakash Dass's case (supra) have accordingly not been affected by the amendment made in Section 113. I have also taken the same view in the case of Manohar Lal v. Valerior (Cawnpore) Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra) and British India Corporation Ltd. Kanpur and another v. G.S. Nigam Civil Revision No. 7 of 1982, decided on 18.4.1983) as has been taken by the Patna High Court in Ramgulam Choudhary and others v. Nawin Choudhary others (supra) and Parsuram Dubey v. Mahanth Laxman Das and others (supra). The decision in Ram Nath Singh and others v. Brij Kishore Singh and others (supra) does not touch upon the question of 'case decided'. It deals with the question of admission of documents and lays down that the admission of documents is a matter of discretion of the Court, and that discretion ought to be exercised judiciously. The case, instead of helping the applicant, goes against him in that, the order refusing to admit the documents was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the provisions of Order XIII do not lay down any absolute bar to the admission of the documents after the framing of the issues. In Food Corporation of India v. Virendra Nath Dhar (supra) it was held that by virtue of the Explanation added to sub -section (2) of Section 115 by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, the scope of word 'case' has been widened, and hence an order directing production of documents will amount to 'case decided.' With great respect, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree to this view, and my detailed reasonings are contained in the decisions rendered in Manohar Lal v. Valerior (Cawnpore) Pvt. Ltd. and another (supra) and in British India Corporation Ltd. Kanpur and another v. B.S. Nigam (Civil Revision No. 7 of 1982, decided on 18 -4 -1983) Nanu Ram and others v. Vardichand and another (supra) does not deal with the question of 'case decided' and in a way goes against the applicant In that, the order of refusal to admit the documents was set aside by the High Court on the ground that there was no absolute bar to the admission of documents after the framing of issues. In Kanda and others v. Waghu : A.I.R. 1950 P.C. 68 it was held that in the matter of admitting documents. "The Court has a discretion and while generally speaking will be a wise exercise of the discretion to admit such evidence the question must be decided in each case in the light of the particular circumstances.........." The Court below has, in the exercise of its discretion, admitted the documents on payment of Rs. 25/ - by way of costs. The order does not call for any interference. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Although the opposite party has entered appearance but as the revision is being dismissed at the admission stage, I make no order as to costs.