MOOL CHAND SHARMA Vs. HARI SHANKER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the defandant is directed against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur city Court No 2 dated November 11, 1987. The plaintiff -non -petitioner filed a suit for ejectment of a shop on the ground of default in the payment of rent, sub -letting and reasonuable and bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff. The suit was filed on March 12, 1980. Issues in the case were framed on August 10, 1981. Both the parties led their evidence and thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments On October 9, 1987 the arguments of the plaintiff's counsel were completed and thereafter, the case was fixed for the arguments of the learned Counsel for the defendant on October 12, 1987. An adjournment was sought on behalf of the defendant and the case was adjourned to October 13, 1987. Again an adjournment was sought and the case was fixed on October 15, 1987. On October 15, 1987 also an adjournment was sought and the case was fixed on October 17, 1987 for arguments of the learned Counsel for the defendants. On October 17, 1987 an application was filed on behalf of the defendant Under Order 13 Rule 2, CPC for producing certain documents in evidence. The said application was dismissed by the trial court by order dated November 11 1987 The defendant aggrieved against the said order has filed this revision.

(2.) IT was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the document even if submitted at late stage should not have been disallowed by the trial court. It is submitted that the documents filed in the present case were beyond suspicion and necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on Gyaniram v. Gulab Chand, 1960 RLW 321, and Municipal Council, Bharatpur v. Gokul Chand, 1987 RLW 640.

(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. The present suit for ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide personal necessity and sub -letting is pending since March, 1980. Issues were framed as early on August 10, 1981. The defendant was fully alive about his case on the basis of the issues framed in the present case and had full opportunity to produce the evidence which he now seeks to produce Under Order 13 Rule 2 No good cause has been shown for the late production of the documents at the fag end of the trial of the case. As already mentioned above even the arguments of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff were closed on October 9, 1987 and thereafter the case was fixed for arguments of the learned Counsel for the defendant. An adjournment was sought on three dates and thereafter on October 17, 1987 the present application was filed Under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC. The trial court held that no good cause has been shown by the defendant for the late production of the documents in the present case. The defendant does not have a right to produce the document at any stage and he has to show a good cause for filing the documents at late stage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case no good cause has been shown for producing the documents at a late stage. The cases relied by the learned Counsel for the defendant -petitioner are totally distinguishable as the documents in these cases were produced at much earlier stage then the stage in the present case. Apart from that the nature of the documents which were produced in the cases cited above were executed between the parties themselves or were beyond suspicion. The position of the documents sought to be produced in the present case is entirely different. In view of these circumstances, the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner render no assistance in the the present case. This revision thus having no force is dismissed.