CHAIN SINGH Vs. BISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner,Jodhpur, dated 23rd August, 1954 by which he upheld the order of the trial as well as that of the appellate court about: the presentation of certain documents by the plaintiff after the framing of issues.

(2.) WE have gone through the record of the case and have heard the learned counsel for the parties, It appears that the plaint and the written statement were filed on 18-11-1953 and 23-12-53 respectively along with some documents by the parties. Subsequently the plaintiff filed the replication on 18th January, 1954, and issue were framed on 20th January, 1954, After the issues had been framed the Court allowed the plaintiff to present other documents on the 1st February, 1954. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that according to Rule 24(2) of the rules framed under Sec.8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, the court should not have allowed the plaintiff to present these documents at such a late stage of the proceedings unless good cause was shown to the ratification of the court for the non-production thereof at the first hearing. It is also urged that the trial court had not given any reasons for admitting these documents. A perusal of the order of the learned S.D.O. shows that he had examined these documents at the time of their presentation and he was satisfied that there could not be any doubt about their genuineness and that these were necessary to meet the case stated by the defendant in his written statement. The learned Additional Commissioner also examined these documents and held the same view. Rule 24 referred to above read with order 7 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. gives a wide discretion to a court with regard to the reception of documents which are not produced with the plaint, and where there can be no doubt about their genuine. Both the courts applied their mind and correctly exercised their discretion allowing the documents for reasons stated by them. Such a discretion is not lightly interfered with by an appellate court as laid down in A.I.R. 1953 Assam 40. In view of these facts, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.