HARCHARAN SINGH RANAUTE Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This revision petition is being disposed of on hearing the contesting parties. The Punjab National Bank had brought a suit for recovery of money against M/s Dinesh Chemicals, the principal debtor and Harcharan Singh, the guarantor. The plea of the guarantor was that under the influence of liquor served by Dinesh Kumar his signatures were obtained on some papers. No list of documents or list of reliance was submitted along with the written statement. After the plaintiff had closed the evidence, the defendants were called upon to produce evidence. DW.5 Satish Chander was being examined when he wanted to produce certain documents or copies thereof from the records of Gazal Restaurant, Chandigarh stating that some liquor was served against certain bills in the name of Dinesh Kumar, on objection being taken, he was not allowed to produce the documents. It was stated that on account of mistake on the part of the counsel, copies of the documents were not furnished by the guarantor earlier.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code shows that on sufficient cause being shown to the satisfaction of the Court documents which were not earlier produced or relied upon could be taken on record. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that it was on account of the mistake of the counsel that the documents were not earlier produced although in the written statement the fact that Harcharan Singh was made to take liquor at Gazal Restaurant was mentioned. The evidence sought to be produced, of course, would be corroborative in nature. The decision would depend on the direct evidence of the persons who had actually gone and taken the liquor etc. Party should not be made to suffer on account of mistake of his counsel. That being the position, the trial Judge should have allowed the production of the documents on payment of costs and not simply to reject on the ground of delay.

(3.) This revision petition is allowed; the order of the trial Court dated December 19, 1989, incorporated while recording statement of DW.5 Satish Chander, is set aside. The witness is allowed to produce the documents subject to pay of Rs. 300/- as costs. The costs will be paid on the date to be fixed by the trial Court. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear in the trial Court on April 4, 1990.