SYED KHAJAHASANUDDIN WARANGAL Vs. MOHD RIYAJUDDLN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner seeks to assail the order, dated 5-07-2003 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.1907 of 2003 in O.S.No.415 of 1998.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed a suit for perpetual injunction. Subsequently, when the suit was coming up for trial, he filed I.A.No.1907 of 2003 seeking leave to file certain documents, which had not been filed earlier along with the plaint. Among all other documents, which are sought to be introduced by the appellant, notable are the agreement of sale, dated 25-11-1995 and the receipt, dated 28-11-1995. Under the impugned order, the learned Judge refused to receive those two documents. Inter alia, the grounds assigned were that firstly, the agreement of sale required to be stamped as per Article 47 (a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and having not seen duly stamped, it could not be received and secondly, no sufficient reason was shown for not filing the said document along with the plaint having been in possession of the same. The order does not speak about the second document namely, the receipt.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks to contend that there has been a mistake crept in at some level, having regard to the fact that these two documents, which are now sought to be introduced had already been filed along with the plaint and in fact, marked as Ex.P-1 and P-2 in the application filed seeking interim injunction along with the plaint. On a verification of the copy of the order dated 6-8-1998 in I.A.No.471 of O.S.No.415 of 1998 it is abvious that the agreement of sale and the receipt for Rs.10,000/- both contain the even date i.e., 25-11-1995 appeared to have been marked as Ex.P-1 and P-2. Even assuming the document obviously is evidentiary in nature. Secondly, the are not the suit documents. The suit was filed for perpetual injunction. Such document could be filed with the leave of the court. The suit seems to have been coming up for trial. Therefore, the trial court ought to have received the documents to subserve the ends of justice. It could be mentioned here that the documents, which are germane for the effective adjudication of the matter shall have to be considered by the court even there had been failure on part of the parties to adduce the same as a requirement of the court. A reference in this regard can be made to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C where under the court can receive the additional evidence as requirement of the Court. It becomes an obligation of the court for rendering justice at times, to send for the document when the matter is coming up for trial. Be that as it may, the receipt of the document is one aspect and introducing the documents in evidence is an altogether different aspect and it is the settled law that merely because the document is permitted to be received by the court until and unless it is introduced in evidence, the document will not be considered as evidence eat the time of the final disposal of the matter. To consider the document as evidence, he shall have to duly introduce the same during the course the trial and though such a stage has not yet been reached in the matter and it is at the first stage, the court has rejected the document. Such a rejection can be made only when the document per se is not admissible in evidence, may be for want of stamp duty or any other reason, which prohibits such rejection. For the said reason, the impugned order passed rejecting the document in my considered view is erroneous.