A party has a right to file the documents on which he relies at or before the settlement of issues. If a document is not filed under O.13. R.1 of the Code, such a document can be filed at a subsequent stage provided the document is not in possession or power of any party.

1. This civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 24th Mar., 1979.

2. By the impugned order, the court below refused to entertain certain documents on the record and admitted certain documents on the record. In this connection the provisions of Rr.1 and 2 of O.13 of the Civil P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) are relevant. Under O.13, R.1 of the Code, a party is entitled to produce all the documentary evidence on which he intends to rely at or before the settlement of issues. O.13, R.2 of the Code applies to a case where the documents are not in possession of the party concerned. If a document is not in possession of a party concerned, such a document can be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof. O.13, R.2 further provides that the court shall record the reasons for so doing.

3. In the present case, it is clear from paras 6, 7 and 8 of the revision petition that the documents, which were filed in the civil court on 21st Mar., 1979, were in the custody of the Additional Collector, Nalanda, in Mutation Appeal No. 53 of 1974-75. The Additional Collector ordered that these documents should be returned by an order dated 8th Mar., 1979. It is, therefore, clear that good cause was shown by the petitioner. The court did not hold that no good cause was shown for the period up to 8th Mar., 1979. The court was of opinion that no good cause was shown for the period between 8th Mar., 1979 and 20th Mar., 1979. The allegation of the petitioner was that the documents were returned to Shri Nagina Prasad, Advocate, on 8th Mar., 1979, and he handed over those documents to the petitioner on 20th Mar., 1979. This part of the case of the petitioner has not been accepted by the court below.

4. If the court means to say that the documents should have been filed on 8th Mar., 1979, then the petitioner has shown good cause for not filing the documents in the civil court. It is not required in a case under O.13, R.2 of the Code to explain the delay in respect of every day. It is enough for the petitioner if he has explained the delay up to 8th Mar., 1979. In my opinion, when the court accepted that good cause has been shown up to 8th Mar., 1979 the court was within its jurisdiction to receive the documents as good cause had been shown up to 8th Mar., 1979. Hence, in my opinion, the court below acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in not accepting the document on 21st Mar., 1979.

5. Learned Counsel for the Opposite party contends that this civil revision petition is not maintainable on these grounds: (i) That by the impugned order, no case has been decided by the court below. (ii) That the revision petition is barred under the provisos (a) and (b) of Sec.115 of the Code. (iii) That civil revision petition is maintainable where no appeal is provided. (iv) That, if at all, the impugned order which has been passed relates to an error in procedure.

6. So far as the first point is concerned, it is necessary to refer to Explanation to Sec.115 of the Code which runs as follows: "Explanation.- In this section, the expression any case which has been decided includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding." On a perusal of this explanation, it is clear that a civil revision petition will be maintainable against any order which determines rights and obligations of the parties in controversy.

7. In my opinion, any order means any order which determines the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy. In this connection, a reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Baldevdas Shivlal V/s. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., (AIR 1970 SC 406). In para No. 10 of the judgment, their Lordships have held that "a case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or oblig