PROPERTY ASSOCIATION OF BAPTIST Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 23 -3 - 1983 passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Balasore, refusing to admit some documents during the course of hearing. Two petitions were filed by the plaintiffs, one on 16 -3 -83 and the other on 17 -3 -83 purported to be under the provisions of Order 13 Rule 2, C. P. C. seeking permission of the court to admit into evidence the documents enumerated therein. Their plea for production of the documents at a late stage was that the documents are relevant and material for a fair decision of the court which could not be filed earlier as the same were misplaced. The learned Additional Sub Judge has also disposed of some other applications in the same order with which we are not concerned in this revision.

(2.) THE main ground on which some of the documents were refused to be admitted in evidence by the impugned order was that the plea of the plaintiffs that the documents were misplaced some where and could not be sorted out in time was not acceptable. It may be noted that the same plea was taken by the plaintiffs in respect of the document for which the court has granted leave order 13 Rule 2, C. P. C. After hearing the counsels for both the parties, I am of the view that the documents which are sought to be admitted in evidence are relevant and leave should have been granted as prayed for. At the stage of trial a lenient view has to be taken for admission of the documents which are material and relevant to avoid chances of remand. That apart it appears from the records of this case that each of the parties have been filing documents during the course of trial and they have been permitted to do so taking a liberal view of the matter. I, therefore, feel that the same standard should also be applicable to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs should be permitted to adduce, the documents enumerated in his application dated 16 -3 -83 and 17 -3 -83 to be received in evidence subject to proof and relevancy. Hence, this revision is allowed but there would be no order as to costs.