Back
1986 Supreme(Gau) 93
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K.N.Saikia, J.
Jai Prakash Singh -Appellant
Versus
Ram Narayan Singh -Respondent
Civil Revision No. 45 of 1985
Decided On : 04-08-1986
P.Q.Baruah, K.H.Choudhury, D.N.Choudhury, C.Barua
The court has the discretion to accept documents filed at a belated stage under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, but the party must show good cause for the delay.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 13 RULES 1 AND 2 - PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - DELAY IN PRODUCTION - GOOD CAUSE - DISCRETION OF COURT - INTERFERENCE IN REVISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his petitions to accept a certified copy of a decree and to recall the opposite party for cross-examination. The trial court found that the petitioner had not shown good cause for the delay in producing the certified copy and that the document was not relevant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the certified copy of the decree as the petitioner had not shown good cause for the delay in producing it. However, the court set aside the order rejecting the application for recalling the opposite party for cross-examination, holding that it may result in injustice if the petitioner is not given an opportunity to cross-examine the opposite party with reference to the statements he made earlier, if embodied in the certified copy of the decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the certified copy of the decree? 2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for recalling the opposite party for cross-examination?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court did not err in rejecting the certified copy of the decree as the petitioner had not shown good cause for the delay in producing it. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to produce the copy of the decree until the opposite party's evidence was closed, and that he had not given a satisfactory explanation for the delay. 2. The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the application for recalling the opposite party for cross-examination. The court noted that the minority of the opposite party was in issue and that he could be contradicted on basis of the certified copy as regards his age. The court held that if that opportunity is refused to the petitioner it may result in miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed. The order rejecting the certified copy of the decree was upheld, but the order rejecting the application for recalling the opposite party for cross-examination was set aside and the application was remanded to the trial court for decision.
2. The petitioner instituted the above title suit against the opposite party and few others for partition and accounts of their ancestral coparcenary properties amongst themselves claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of one late Adharant Singh. The suit was decreed exparte with costs on 10.8.76. The opposite party filed petition No. 514/79 on 16.2.79 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. for rejecting the preliminary decree which was drawn up, whereupon Misc.(J) Case No. 6/79 was registered. The main grounds urged for setting aside the decree of the title suit were that the petitioner, as plaintiff, suppressed material facts of defendant-opposite party's minority on the date of filing of the suit and non-service of summons on him. In the miscellaneous (judicial) case the opposite party's evidence was closed on 6.12.82 and the next date 19.1.83 was fixed for evidence of the petitioner's party. After several adjournments the instant petitioner as opposite party filed two petitions, namely, petition No. 1797/84 and No. 1796/84 for acceptance of the above certified copy of the decree and for recalling the opposite party for further cross-examination, as stated above. By the certified copy of the aforesaid decree the petitioner wanted to show that the opposite party was major and not minor at the time of institution of the title suit. The learned trial Judge, after examining the provisions of Order 13 Rule 1 observed that as the said decree was passed on 28.2.82 and was signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court on 19.9.82, there was no valid reason or cause preventing the petitioner from procuring the certified copy of the same at an early date and the reason given that the certified copy was lying at Gorakhpur, was not believed. Besides, the petition for copy of the document was filed on 16.9.82 and the same was ready for delivery to the petitioner on 30.9.82 and consequently the document was evidently produced before the Court after inordinate and inexcusable delay and without any reasonable explanation. It was produced after the closure of evidence, including that of the opposite party himself, who was cross-examined at length by the petitioner. The learned trial Court also expressed serious doubt about the correctness, if not genuineness, of the alleged certified copy as all the pages did not bear the signature of the proper authority. The Court further observed that the said decree contained the name of one Ram Narayan Singh, aged 19 years, son of Ram Awadh Singh, resident of Village Bharah Tappa Burhej, Pargana Dhuripur, Tehsil Bongaon, Gorakhpur. The opposite party described himself in Misc. (J) Case No. 6/79 as Sri Ram Narayan Singh, son of late Adharam Singh, resident of Village Gareh, P. C. Rekahat, District Gorakhpur, U.P., presently residing at Digboi town, Mouza Makum, P.S. Digboi in the district of Dibrugarh. The application for acceptance of the certified copy of the decree having been rejected, the Court also rejected the prayer for recalling the opposite party for cross-examination as his evidence was already over and he was thoroughly cross-examined.
3. Mr. D. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits, inter alia, that the certified copy of the decree being a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act doubting the genuineness and authority of the document without giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain, was wholly without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice; that the Court acted in excess of jurisdiction by assessing the probative value of the document without ad
