CHOUTH MAL Vs. FAZAL HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case comes up before us on a reference being made by a learned single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 25 of 1989, Chouthmal and another V. Fazal Hussain vide his Order dated 21. 7. 1989. The learned single Judge has referred the following two questions for determination: (1) Whether a subordinate court should not record reasons for refusing documentary evidence sought to be adduced under O. 13, R. 2 C. P. C. even though good cause has been shown for such late production and the document is a material one? (2) Whether no revision would lie against an order by which a subordinate court has refused to accept documentary evidence under O. 13, R. 2 C. P. C. notwithstanding that good cause has been shown for late production and the document is of vital and material importance? The aforesaid questions arise out of certain conflicting judgments rendered by different Benches of this Court and, therefore, the learned single Judge has thought it fit that as these questions are important, they, need to be decided by a larger Bench and hence, this case comes up before us.

(2.) AS regards the first question, learned single Judge of this Court in Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. V. Union of India (l) and other connected revision petitions took the following view. "it plainly says that no documentary evidence shall be received after the settlement of issues unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for its non-production and reasons shall be recorded for receiving it. Under the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the court has jurisdiction to hold rightly or wrongly that good cause to its satisfaction has been or has not been shown for the late production of a document. Such a decision has no relation to the question of jurisdiction of the Court. If the court has failed to record any reason for receiving any document at a late stage, it may be said that it has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The above quoted provisions specifically require the recording of reasons by the court while accepting a document. However, no reason is required to be recorded for not accepting a document at a late stage. In such a case, there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. " Thus, according to the learned single Judge of this Court in Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. 's case (supra), recording of reasons by the Court are required only at the time of accepting the document. However, no reasons are required to be recorded for not accepting the document and in such a case, there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. In other words, against such an order refusing to accept the document, no revision petition will lie.

(3.) IT was strenuously contended by Mr. N. M. Lodha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that O. 13 R. 2 C. P. C. only requires the Court to record reasons, when it accepts the document at a late stage. He has further submitted that when the Court rejects the document then the Court is not required to give reasons. This particular view has also been taken by Hon'ble Milap Chandra, J. in Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd's. case (supra ). However, we are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Lodha in view of the submissions made by Mr. A. L. Chopra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who has submitted that recording of satisfaction of the Court for late production of a document is also a matter of exercise of judicial discretion and rejection and acceptance of documents also is a matter of exercise of judicial discretion and judicial discretion has to be exercised by recording a speaking order. Whether it is a case of acceptance of documents or it is a case of rejection of documents, unless the Court records its reasons, the revisional or appellate court will have no opportunity to examine those reasons. IT is true that every judicial order must be based on reasons and it must be a speaking order. May be that the relevant rule does not specifically provides for recording of reasons for rejection of documents but recording of reasons is very much necessary in view of the principles of natural justice. IT was further contended by Mr. Chopra that discretion should be exercised so as to further the cause of justice. All the rules of procedure being meant for the administration of justice and hence too technical a view should not be taken. This very view has been upheld by a decision of the Orissa High Court in Property Association of Baptist Churches Vs. State of Orissa IT was submitted by him that when genuineness of a document is beyond doubt, there can be no reasonable objection to its reception even at a later stage. True that Sub-r. (1) makes the satisfactory explanation for non-production in accordance with R. 1, a condition precedent for the reception of documents produced beyond the time prescribed by O. 13 R. 1 C. P. C. but the sub-rule must be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of justice. The court is entitled to consider not only the reason for non-production but the authenticity of the document and the defying effect of the reception in evidence of the document. In cases, where the document is of undoubted authenticity leave should ordinarily be granted but the discretion of the Court is there and the discretion should be exercised judiciously.