KHALIQ MIR Vs. RAMZAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 14 -9 -1980 passed by the Sub -Judge, Municipal Magistrate. Srinagar, declining to being on record a certified copy of a public document. The sole reason given by the trial court in support of its order is that the document was sought to be produced at a late stage. In this, court has over -looked the provisions of Order 13 rule 2 CPC, which reads as under: - "No documentary evidence in the possession of power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non -production thereof ; and the court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing "

(2.) ACCORDING to the judicial opinion, a document in possession or power of a party which should have been produced at the first hearing shall be received at any subsequent stage of proceedings provided there is no reason to suspect that the document is fake, or surrounded by suspicion:

(3.) IN the present case, the document sought to be produced is a certified copy of the report prepared by the Revenue Officers concerning "Nishandehi" of the disputed plot: The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the document is fake and forged and does not have any file at the source to support it. He urged that the document, cannot, therefore, be received in evidence under Order 13 Rule 2. I am not inclined to agree with this argument. The document is the certified copy of a public record and prima -facie, there is no reason to suspect that the original does not exist. The report, however, is not admissible in evidence without further proof. The proof can, however, come only after the party concerned has been allowed to place the certified copy of the report on record. In case the party is not able to get the report proved by its author, or the original file is not forth -coming, to support it, the court will be entitled to draw its own inference about the weight to be attached to it, but that should not stand in the way of the document coming on the record, merely because it is being produced at late stage. Therefore, the lower court was not justified in refusing to allow the document to come on record simply because it bad not been produced at the first hearing of the suit. The order of the lower court is not sustainable in law, and is hereby set aside. The petitioner is allowed to bring the document on record as also to produce further proof in support therefore, if so adrvised. The other side shall be at liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence in this behalf. This order shall be, however, subject to payment of Rs. 30/ - as costs. The revision is disposed of accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 19th of August, 1983.