( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated the 6th of November, 1969 by which the trial Court dismissed the petitioner s application preferred under Order 13, Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that the original agreement dated the 6th of April. 1959, which was filed with the application be permitted to be produced in Court and be received la evidence.

( 2 ) THE application was contested. In paragraph 1 of the application it was stated that the plaintiff had purchased the house in suit from Shri Ganga Sahai son of Shri Katara in April, 1959 by a writing. The document sought to be produced with the application was that writing. The trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the document like the one sought to be produced could be easily procured. It was observed:

"such a back dated document on a white paper could be prepared at any time with the actual thumb impression of the witnesses and the executant". Proceeding a little further the trial Court again found:

"it is unregistered and unstamped. I find that such a document could be prepared at any time, just to show that the house existed in the year 1959. "the trial Court did not allow the application on the finding that a document, the authenticity whereof was doubtful, could not be allowed to be placed on the record. The Court below was constrained to record:

"i find that in this case there is every chance of the document having been concocted. "on that basis the document was not allowed to be produced as evidence and proved on the record of the case.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to Order 13, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called "the Code") it is required of the parties to produce at the first hearing of the suit all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power on which they may intend to rely. The Court below was dealing with the petitioner s application in terms of O. 13. R. 2 which is: Order 13, Rule 2:

"2. No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall 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 and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. "the Court is given discretion by the aforequoted provision to allow the production of documents which may not have been produced in accordance with the provisions of Order 13, Rule 1. but when receiving such documents as evidence, the Court has to record reasons for doing that. It was open to the trial Court to refuse to receive the document in terms of Rule 2 and if it was to receive it as evidence, the trial Court was to show reasons for allowing the production of the document as evidence.

( 4 ) I have perused the document. which bears the date 6th of April, 1959. It has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the document had been mentioned by the petitioner in the course of his statement recorded in Court earlier and that as stated at that time it was customary to execute such documents evidencing the transfer of property. It is also urged that the document is a receipt and not a sale-deed. The terms employed in the concerned document, however, are that Ganga Sahai representing himself as the owner of the property stated that he had received Rs. 6,000. 00 towards its sale price and after the execution of the document no rights whatsoever were left with him. The document in its total effect is a sale-deed. It is covered by Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act and I hold that as the sale deed pertaining to immovable property sold for Rs. 6,000. 00, it was compulsorily registrable. According to Sec. 49 of the Registration Act no document required by Section 17 to be registered can be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property unless it has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document