BALKISHAN Vs. JUGRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two cross-revisions No. 14 of 1951 filed by the plaintiff and 20 of 1051 filed by the defendants as both of them arise out of the same order passed by the learned Civil Judge.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Balkishan instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/-against the defendants Jugraj and Chaturbhuj on 15th of January, 1949 in the court of the learned Civil Judge. The suit was based on the ground that the plaintiff was the adopted son of the deceased Ranchhordas and that the predecessors in title of the defendants, namely, Parvati and her husband's brother Shivnath had incurred a liability in his favour to the extent of the amount claimed in the suit. Defendants did not admit the status of the plaintiff as an adopted son of Ranchhordas and put him to the proof of the claim preferred by him as they were ignorant of it. They admitted their status as legal representatives of Shivnath but pleaded that they were not the legal representatives of Parvati. Six months after the suit was instituted, defendants applied on 16th of July, 1949 under Order XI, Rule 12 for an order directing the plaintiff to make a discovery on oath of all the documents which were in his possession or power and related to the suit. PLAINTIFF gave a list of all the documents including those for the production of which he applied for permission under Order XIII, Rule 1 later on. Issues were framed on 22nd of November, 1949. The case was fixed for arguments in connection with an issue relating to misjoinder of defendants and causes of action on 17th of January, 1950. After the disposal of the issue on this date, the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 23rd of March, 1950. It appears that at this stage the plaintiff looked more carefully and closely into the matter and found that certain documents were in his possession and were material for the disposal of questions arising in the suit but had not been produced in court. He accordingly applied on 13th of February, 1950 under Order XIII, Rule 1 and also sec. 151 Civil Procedure Code for permission to file ten documents. This application came up before Mr. Farooqi on 12th of April, 1950. He rejected it on the following three grounds: - (1) That provisions of Order XIII, Rule 1 had no application after the striking of the issues. (2) That in order to enable the court to receive these documents at a subsequent stage, it was necessary to show good cause to the satisfaction of the court under Order XIII, Rule 2 for their non-production at the proper time but the plaintiff had failed to do so. (3) That section 151 did not apply inasmuch as specific provisions of the law applicable to the matter in dispute were contained in Order XIII.