RAJ KUMAR RAJMANI Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE trial court heard the arguments and by order dated 15. 2. 94 fixed the case for pronouncement of judgment on 21. 2. 94. Before the judgment could be pronounced, an application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the C. P. C. was filed by the plaintiff for bringing on record two documents. That application has been allowed by the trial court by order dated 24. 3. 94 and this is one of the defendants' Revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the defendant has argued that after the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment, no proceedings were pending before the trial court. No application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code could be entertained. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Singh Kumar (1), wherein while considering the scope of Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code it was observed that after the case is fixed for pronouncement of judgment, no proceedings are pending and, therefore, no application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code could be entertained. Even under Order 13 Rule 2 it is provided that an application for production of documents may be received at any stage of the proceeding provided other conditions laid down in the rule are in existence. Since the proceedings are over by fixing the case for pronouncement of judgment, provisions under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code will cease to apply and the aggrieved party can only file those documents as additional documents in appeal