BISWANATH SATPATHY Vs. SUBARNA DIBYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is directed against an order of the learned Munsif, Nayagarh refusing to admit in evidence a deed of adoption filed by petitioner No. 2 in course of trial of Title Suit No. 5/76/34 of 1972/68.

(2.) Opposite Parties Subarna Dibya and Rajani Dei are the widow and daughter, respectively, of late Somnath Satpathy. They filed the suit for partition against the petitioners. Petitioner No. 2, Banambar Satpathy, who is the natural born son of petitioner No. 1 Biswanath Satpathy filed written statement claiming himself to be the adopted son of the said Somanath Satpathy. The suit was filed on 17-7-1968 and Petitioner No. 2 filed his written statement on 16-3-1970. Trial of the suit commenced on 30-7-1973. During his cross-examination on 6-8-1973, P. W. 5 was confronted with his signatures on a deed of adoption said to have been executed by Somnath Satpathy on 15-2-1954. He admitted the signatures which were marked as Exts. B and C. When the petitioners' Counsel put some other questions about the document, the Counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties raised objection to its admissibilty. The objections were that the document had not been referred to in the written statement filed by Petitioner No. 2 as required under Order 8, Rule 1 (1), Civil Procedure Code (Orissa Amendment); that it was not genuine and that there was no sufficient ground for accepting the document at the belated stage. These contentions prevailed with the learned Munsif who refusd to admit the document in evidence. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Munsif acted with material irregularity in not considering their petition showing cause of late production of the document.

(3.) The pertinent question for consideration is whether in view of the failure of the petitioner to comply with the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 (1), Civil Procedure Code (Orissa Amendment) and Order 13, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code the document can be admitted by the Court at the trial stage. The scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure is such that production and inspection of documents should be completed before the case is taken up for hearing on evidence. Production of documents at a late stage causes dislocation of business of the Court and harassment to the party against whom the documents are sought to be used. Order 8, Rule 1, sub-rule (2) as inserted by Orissa Amendment runs as follows :