1. This is an application by defendant No. 2 and is directed against order dated 18-3-1983 (in Title Suit No. 101 of 1975) refusing to take a document of the petitioner in evidence. The court below has refused to take the document in question in evidence on the sole ground that the plaintiff had closed his case and it is at that stage that the petitioner (defendant No. 2) had come up before the court with a prayer to take the document in question in evidence.

2. The petitioner contended in the court below that the petitioner had shown good cause for the non-production of the document in question on or before the settlement of the issues. The court below has negatived the contention of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended before me that the court below has acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction and also with material irregularity in refusing to take the document in question in evidence and has further contended that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it will occasion a failure of justice.

4. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, some relevant facts have to be stated. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 instituted a suit (Title Suit No. 101 of 1975) for specific performance of contract on the basis of an alleged Mahadanama said to have been executed by defendant No. 1 in his favour. The other facts, as in the plaint, are not necessary to be stated for the purpose of deciding the instant application. The defendant No. 2 petitioner appeared in the suit on 1-3-1983 and prayed to the Court for allowing him to file a written statement, which prayer was allowed and the Court directed the petitioner to file the written statement by 7th of March, 1983, which was filed within the time granted by the Court. Thereafter the plaintiff started adducing evidence of his witnesses. By 18-3-1983 the plaintiff had closed his case.

5. On 18-3-1983 the petitioner filed a petition in the Court below with a prayer to allow him to adduce the certified copy of the sale deed executed by Mostt, Guljaria (defendant No. 1), opposite party No. 2 in the instant application, in favour of the petitioner. The petitioners case was that he had filed the original document in another proceeding for compulsory registration of the said sale deed in respect of some of the properties, which are included in the present suit. The petitioners case further was that the original document was misplaced as it was in the custody of the Advocate of the petitioner at Chapra but he subsequently died, and the said document was not located even though the petitioner had made vigorous efforts, and that it was lost. Thereafter the petitioner started taking steps for the withdrawal of the certified copy of the aforesaid document from another Court and succeeded in obtaining the same from the Court of Munsif in Suit No. 47 of 1977 and the petitioner contended in the Court below that the said document, under the circumstances, was beyond his reach and in that view of the matter could not be filed earlier. According to the petitioner the said document was an evidence to show that the petitioner owned the property and that he was in actual possession of the properties covered by the said deed of sale and in the ends of justice the said document was essential to be taken in evidence, as in absence of the said document the point involved in the suit could not be adjudicated upon. On a perusal of the order sheet dated 18-3-1983 (the impugned order) it seems that no rejoinder was filed either by the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 or by any other defendants including defendant No. 1 Most. Guljaria. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 8 has not drawn my attention to any order to the effect that any rejoinder was filed by them or even by defendant No. 1 (opposite party No. 2) or the plaintiff (opposite party No. 1).

6. The petitioner had appeared in t