RAMA FINANCE CORPORALION Vs. P THIMMAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revisions are filed against the orders passed on the two applications filed by the plaintiff in the lower Court. The Petitioner/Plaintiff as Managing partner of the registered firm, filed the suit against the respondent The registration extract of the firm was not filed. The plaintiff has closed evidence on his side and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage,the petitioner/plaintiff came forward with the two applications, one forrecallingP.W.2,the plaintiff for purposes of marking the registration certificate of the plaintiff-firm and the second application for marking the document as an exhibit, after condoning the delay. Both the applications were dismissed on the same day not by a common order, but by two separate orders. The lower Court found that there is no satisfactory explanation for not filing the document earlier and the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up the loop-hole in his evidence.

(2.) In I.A.No.386 of 1994 which is an application filed under Order 13, Rules 1 & 2 C.P. C., to receive the document after condoning the delay, it is clearly stated that by mistake and by over-sight, the document could not be filed and the delay is not intentional or wanton.

(3.) In I.A.No.385 of 1994 which is an application filed under Order 18. Rule 17, no reasons are mentioned for non-filing of the document earlier. Therefore, the lower Court while dismissing the said application observed that no reasons are assigned. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.386 of 1994, it is clearly stated that by over-sight, the document couldnot be filed earlier. Therefore, the ground that no reasons are assigned for non-filing of the document earlier is not correct. The other ground is that the application is meant for filling up the lacuna pointed out by the respondent in his arguments in the suit. This also cannot be a ground in my view to reject the application.