B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision petition the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Mummidivaram in l. A. No. 82/94 in O. S. 206/85 dated 2-3-1994 is challenge. Therein the learned Munsif allowed LA. 82/94 filed under Order. ,13, Rule 2 of the C. P. C. and accepted the documents produced by the defendants by condoning the delay in filing the same. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. Respondents are the defendants.

( 2 ) IN l. A. 82/94, the defendants sought to produce a document said to be a Xerox copy of an agreement and while producing they explained the delay in producing the same. Defendants 1 to 4 and 6 are brothers while defendant No. 5 is their mother. Defendant No. 2 filed the affidavit in support of the application stating that certain documents were filed earlier, that their uncle one Sari-pella Surapa Raju was looking after the affairs after the death of their father and he was having the custody of all the documents, that he also suddenly died in January, 1992 and therefore, the original documents despite thorough search could not be found, that their advocate had some photostat copies of the documents and therefore, they obtained a photostat copy of the document and produced it in court. The application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition and further contending that the application is not bona fide, and belated. The learned Munsif while accepting the cause given in the affidavit for the late production of the document pointed out that since the document is a photostat copy, it could be used as secondary evidence at the time of enquiry to consider its evidentiary value. Thus the plaintiff who is aggrieved by such an order filed this revision petition challenging the said order.

( 3 ) THE learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Poorniah, learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised several contentions in challenging the impugned order. In the first place, the order of the learned Munsif is said to be beyond the scope of Order 13, Rule 2 of C. P. C. Secondly, it is contended that on the facts presented by the defendants denied by the plaintiff, the learned Munsif ought not to have accepted the reasons given for presenting the document late. Thirdly, it is contended that the learned Munsif exceeded the implication of the provisions by saying that the document can be used as secondary evidence.

( 4 ) THE first contention cannot be accepted. The defendants have given some cogent and convincing reasons as to why they could not produce the document before the court except along with the application. Their uncle Mr. Saripella Surapa Raju was assisting them in the litigation and the documents were in his custody only and that he also died. Though they searched for the documents in the house of their uncle, the original documents could not be traced and the Xerox copy which was available with their advocate was brought and produced. Although such reasons were denied in the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiff, such facts being within the special means of knowledge of the defendants who were the best persons to say, could not have been disbelieved unless there was an independent enquiry by some source which the plaintiff appears to have not done. On the face of it, the reasons given were neither absurd -nor capricious. Such instances in the experience of human beings are neither improbable nor strange. There were no mala fides on the part of the defendants in producing the document. The finding of fact regarding the sufficiency of the reasons for the delay in production of the document recorded by the learned Munsif does not warrant any interference by this court in this revision. In fact, condoning the delay in producing a document lately, is not beyond the scope of Order 13, Rule 2 of C. P. C. Even regarding the second point, there is no merit for the same reasons.

( 5 ) THE third contention appears to have some-force. Under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document