( 1 ) PARTIES are heard. The appellant-original plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1986, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1985, by the learned Assistant Judge at Porbandar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1985, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1982, by the learned Civil Judge ( J. D.) Porbandar, is before this Court with the submission that on one side the learned trial court rejected the plaintiff s application for production of the document which was illegal and the appellate Court did not consider the said argument iner-alia holding that the plaintiff did not challenge the said order in duly constituted form. The submission of Mr. Shah that the judgment of the learned first appellate Court is per-incurium Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides that a person if is aggrieved by an interim order which had ultimately led to a wrong and incorrect judgment can always challenge the correctness of the said order in an appeal which is filed against the judgment and under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate Court would have powers to examine the correctness and validity of such order which had vitiated the entire proceeding and led to wrong findings or illegal judgment.

( 2 ) HE also submits that the document was sought to be produced before the learned first appellate Court during course of cross-examination as additional evidence, but the said application was also unceremoniously rejected. The appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial questions of law. "1. Whether the orders passed by the Trial Court on interim application cannot be made a ground of appeal 2. Whether carbon copy of the document, the agreement, acknowledging dues executed by the defendant should have been allowed to be produced"

( 3 ) AFTER taking me through the judgments of the Court below Mr. Shah submits that even the carbon copy of the document which was prepared in the very same process would be admissible in evidence though question relating to its authenticity or genuineness can always be raised by the other side. Referring to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act he submits that a carbon copy can always be produced in evidence.

( 4 ) SHRI Dave, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that if the order passed by the learned trial Court relating to production of document was not challenged right in time, then the same could not be made a ground of appeal. He

submits that carbon copy of the document would not have been admissible in evidence unless the document is proved to have been lost or so.

( 5 ) SO far as the first question is concerned, I must immediately answer the same in favour of the appellant. Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that unless otherwise expressly provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction ; but, where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal. As sub Section (2) is not relevant for out purpose, I am not referring the same. Section 105 in its clear terms provides that against some particular order if an appeal is not provided, then such an order can be challenged in an appeal which is filed against the final judgment and decree. The reason behind Section 105 is that a party is not required to rush to the revisional Court every time and at the same time does not allow the party to say that though against the impugned order appeal was provided but he did not file the appeal.

( 6 ) UNDISPUTEDLY an order accepting or rejecting a document would not be an appealable order therefore, correctness, validity and propriety of the order can be challenged before the appellate Court with the help and assistance of Section 105 of Code of Civil Procedure. The l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document