Order XVIII, Rule 17-A of the CPC is not mandatory and allows the court to admit additional evidence at a later stage if the party shows good cause and satisfies the court of the reasons for the delay.

1. This is plaintiffs application against an order dated 21st Feb. 1983. by which the court below has refused to admit one document, which is plaint of Title Suit No. 1013 of 1916, as evidence in the suit.

2. The court below has refused the prayer of the plaintiff on the ground that O.XVIII, R.17-A of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was a bar for admitting the document as evidence in the suit at the stage at which it had been filed and the other reason given by the court below is that if the document is admitted into evidence at this stage, it will cause serious prejudice to the defendants.

3. Learned Counsel has submitted that due to inadvertence, the original plaint of Title Suit No. 1013 of 1916, which was already on the record, could not be marked as an exhibit in the case, and the court below-should have admitted the document as an evidence in the suit, after it was allowed to be called for from the record room of the District Judge, Monghyr, in the ends of justice. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is essential to state few facts.

4. The plaintiff-petitioner filed Title Suit No. 48 of 1979, praying for the following reliefs :-

"(a) That it be declared by the court that the plaintiff has full title on the disputed land, and that the defendants had no interest, nor have they any concern with the disputed land and that the plot of land, without number towards north east of Plot No. 1482 as shown in the survey map, in which, after the Tanaza was found to be a part of plot No. 1482 and the plot of land of 1482 which is south and east which is the disputed land, the defendants had no manner of concern, nor have they any concern with the aforesaid disputed land.

(b) That the court may be pleased to direct the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff hereafter.

(c) Costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff.

(d) Any other relief or reliefs, if the court thinks proper may be granted to the plaintiff."

5. Title Suit No. 1013 of 1916 was a suit filed by the ancestors of the defendants. The document in question is more than 66 years old. The present suit proceeded in its usual course and on the 25th Aug. 1981, the petitioner filed an application along with a list of documents, with a prayer to call for the same (i.e., the plaint of Title Suit No. 1013 of 1916), from the record room. This prayer of the plaintiff was allowed by the court by its order dated 27th Aug. 1982. The trial court received the original plaint of Title Suit No. 1013 of 1916, as well as a compromise petition in the suit and its decree, which were called for from the record room of the District Judge. Monghyr, and it is apparent that the court directed that those papers be placed on the record of the suit. The hearing of the suit proceeded and the plaintiff closed his case on 24th Jan. 1983, but the plaint of Title Suit No. 1013 of 1916, which was duly called for by the court below itself and which was already on the record, could not be marked as an exhibit on behalf of the plaintiff.

6. On a perusal of the impugned order. it is clear that the defendant also have closed their case, but arguments are still to begin.

7. On 22nd Feb. 1983, after the close of the plaintiffs case, the defendants themselves made prayer to the court to mark a certified copy of the decree of that title suit (Title Suit No. 1013 of 1916) as an exhibit. This prayer of the defendants was allowed by the court and the decree of that title suit has been marked as Exhibit F.

8. One day earlier, to this, i.e., on 21st Feb. 1983, the plaintiff filed an application for admitting the plaint of Title Suit No. 1013 of 1916 as an evidence in the case after allowing the plaintiff to mark it as an exhibit. This petition was heard on the same day and order was passed in the presence of the parties and the court below by the impugned order rejected the prayer of the plaintiff. Alth