JUDGMENT - Agarwal A.C., J.:—Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Petitioner is permitted to convert the present revision application into a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Petitioner is the original plaintiff, Bank of India. By the present petition, it seeks to impugn the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, Goa on the 1st of November, 1994 in Special Civil Suit No. 184/89/A. By the order, petitioner's application (Exhibit 43) for leave to produce additional documents at the trial has been rejected. The plaintiff has already examined three witnesses in support of its case. It is yet to close its evidence. The application was necessitated on account of certain questions put by the defendant in the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses already examined.

3. In my view, provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to the case. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order 7 lays down in explicit terms that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 or Order 7, Rule 18(1) do not apply to the documents produced in answer to a case set up by the defendant. In other

Click Here to Read the rest of this document