ORDER :- The day-to-day hearing of this suit is interrupted on account of the 2nd defendants producing documents which are neither disclosed in the affidavit of documents nor produced at or before the settlement of issues. The Plaintiffs have closed their case. The 1st defendant is absent throughout. The 2nd Defendants' first witness examination-in-chief is in progress. The plaintiffs strongly object to the production of the documents on several grounds. In order to appreciate the controversy, a brief note of the nature of the suit be made.

2. There are two plaintiffs. The 1st Plaintiff's claim that on 20th February 1969 the 1st Defendant appointed them as pucca Adatiyas. The 1st Plaintiffs sold to the 2nd Plaintiffs caster-seeds by two contracts dated 24th February, 1969, and 1st March, 1969. The 2nd defendants South-Central Railway had appointed the 1st defendant as Out-Agency Contractor at Karimnagar and the term of the 1st Defendant was expiring on 28th February, 1969. The 1st Defendant forwarded to the 1st Plaintiffs two railway receipts both D/-27-02-1979 on the basis of which, according to the 1st Plaintiffs they collected Rs. 40,000/- from the 2nd plaintiffs on 3rd March, 1969 by cheque, but on the same day they made a telegraphic transfer of Rs. 40,000/- to the 1st Defendant. The two wagon loads covered under the two railway receipts never reached Bombay and hence the 1st plaintiffs and the 2nd Plaintiffs mutually put an end to the two contracts and the 1st Plaintiffs refunded to the 2nd-Plaintiffs Rs. 40,000/- and got the two railway receipts endorsed in the 1st Plaintiffs' name. The Plaintiffs now want a decree for about Rs. 47,000/- against the 1st/2nd Defendants for the value of the two wagon loads of casterseeds. The 1st defendant has remained absent. The 2nd Defendants principal contention is that the goods were not delivered by the 1st Defendant at Karimnagar Out-Agency and hence no liability attaches and the 1st Defendant in collusion with others has sought to defraud the Railways.

3. During the examination-in-chief of the 2nd Defendants' first witness M.K.N. Murthy, Mr. Dalal, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd Defendants, produced the Railway Receipt Book containing various carbon copies of the two railway receipts tendered in evidence by the plaintiffs. Mr. Thakore, learned Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs, objected to its going in evidence as it was not disclosed on affidavit nor any notice given that the same would be produced nor inspection thereof was offered. The examination-in-chief of the witness Murthy was resumed this morning and his further evidence was recorded. Mr. Dalal again wanted to produce the Railway Receipt Book and other documents and stated that the 2nd Defendants Advocate had addressed a letter to the Advocates for the Plaintiffs last evening, but as the letter was sought to be delivered at about 6.30 p.m., by which time the instructing Advocate Mr. Bhatt, who is the Proprietor of Messrs. Bhatt and Company had left the office and, therefore, the letter could not be accepted by his office. The service of the letter was beyond the prescribed hours. Mr. Dalal stated that inspection of the documents was offered after the hearing concluded at 4.45 p.m., but they were told to write a letter. The letter which could not be delivered yesterday was delivered this forenoon at 11.40 a.m. which is obviously while the hearing was on. This is the background.

4. Mr. Dalal stated that the particulars of the documents which the 2nd Defendants want to produce are set out in the letter dated 25th September, 1979 addressed to Messrs. Bhatt and Co. The documents are (1) Forwarding Note executed by Defendant No. 1, (2) Railway Receipt Book Numbers from 611551 to 611600, (3) Transit Slip Book from 15300 to 15399 (4) Wagon Registration Register, (5) Wagon Registration Money Receipt Book from 124601 to 124650, (6) Goods Cash Book from 21st January, 1969, (7) Register of Goods received from Karimnagar Out-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document