The defendant's right to produce evidence and the trial Court's discretion to allow the production of documents not entered in the list annexed to the written statement, if good and sufficient reasons are given, for effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition for writ validity and propriety of the order dated 211.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur is questioned. The circumstances giving rise to present petition are as follows:

2. The respondent plaintiff filed a suit against one Smt. Bhuribai widow of Shri Bhawanishankar Ameta seeking a decree for partition of the alleged joint property claiming himself to be adopted son of Shri Bhawanishankar. Smt. Bhuribai denied the plaintiff s claim with a specific assertion that Shri Bhawanishankar never adopted the plaintiff as his son. Smt. Bhuribai before her death on 011.1991 sold the property in question to present petitioners by a registered sale-deed dated 12.09.1989, consequently the petitioners became party to the suit and are now the defendants.

3. By an order dated 14.07.1999 learned trial Court rejected an application preferred by defendant petitioners under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC with a prayer to take on record a photostat copy of the Judgment dated 06.06.1987 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur in the case of State vs. Krishna Chandra @ Kanhaiyalal (Original Cr. Case No. 188/1985). The defendant petitioners wanted to bring the copy of Judgment referred above on record as according to them the plaintiff was accused in that case and defended himself as Kanhaiyalal @ Krishna Chandra son of Nandlal Ameta.

4. The core question for adjudication before the trial Court in present suit is whether the plaintiff is adopted son of Bhawanishankar Ameta and is entitled to any right in the property in question, therefore, the Judgment dated 06.06.1987 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur was considered by the defendant petitioners as a material piece of evidence, hence, they preferred the application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the grounds that (1) the defendant appellant failed to gave sufficient reason to produce photostat copy of the document instead of its certified copy; (2) no reason sufficient to cause delay in submitting application to bring the document concerned on record is given; (3) the plaintiff shall not be having opportunity to explain his stand about document in the event of taking document on record at this stage; and (4) the evidence of the defendant already stood closed, therefore, now by bringing the document on record the right to tender evidence cannot be opened.

.5. On 14.07.1999 the trial Court fixed the suit for hearing with an assumption that the evidence of the defendant petitioners stands closed. The petitioners, therefore, moved an application under Section 151 CPC praying for to permit them to lead evidence. The application so preferred stood rejected by an order dated 110.2000, hence, a revision petition being No. 75/2000 was submitted before this Court wherein an order dated 26.02.2003 was passed which reads as under: -

.“The learned Counsel for the petitioner proposes a cost of Rs. 2,000/-for being permitted to lead evidence which has been closed by the order which impliedly stated that the evidence of the petitioner is closed. Learned Counsel for the respondent though has reservation about the proposition, but in the interest of justice he accepts the proposal that if the petitioner produces his entire evidence before the trial Court on 10.03.2003, then the petitioner may be permitted to lead his evidence. If the entire evidence is produced and a cost of Rs. 2,000/-is given, the evidence of the petitioner will be taken by the trial Court at its convenience. In case the petitioner fails, he will not be entitled to any further indulgence. Put up on 21.03.2003.”

6. In pursuant to the order dated 26.02.2003, the defendant petitioners produced their evidence and the statements of one Shri Purshottamlal (DW. 4) were recorded by the trial Court. Shri Purshottamlal stated that at his instance, a criminal case was lodged against the plaint