ARAVAPALLI SRIRANGANAYAKULU Vs. GODAVARTHI LEELAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the second defendant in the suit assails the Order dated 2-2-2001 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, in I.A. No.48 of 2001 in O.S. No,298 of 1988.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application under Order 13, Rule 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court to receive the documents, list of which along with the documents appended thereto. The list of documents contains apart from various original documents, the other documents namely photostat copies and carbon copies of certain other documents. That application was resisted by the adversary by filing a counter. The Court below having been satisfied with the sufficient cause for not filing those documents earlier at the relevant time directed the documents to be received under the impugned Order. However, while passing that Order it restricted the Order only to receive the original documents by rejecting specifically the other documents namely the photostat copies and carbon copies of other documents on the premise that they were not admissible in evidence. Assailing that part of the Order, as aforesaid, the petitioner seeks to file the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court can direct the reception of the documents at any subsequent stage of the proceedings upon good cause being shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof earlier by assigning the reasons for doing so. A perusal of said provisions shows that the Court is expected to give reasons, in respect of the satisfaction about the sufficient cause for not producing the documents earlier. Rule 3 of Order 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, is a different provision under which the Court may reject any document, which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible by recording the grounds for such rejection. Although it is said in the said Rule that at any stage the Court may do so but on a holistic consideration of the provisions under Order 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the stage envisaged under Rule 3 is certainly not a stage at which the Court is expected to consider the good cause for the non-production of the documents earlier. The Order directing the reception of the documents is entirely different from the Order admitting the documents in evidence. The documents would be allowed to be introduced in evidence only when the three other requirements are satisfied, namely,