A plaintiff has a right to produce a document in answer to any case set-up by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 18(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure without the leave of the Court.

S. S. VYAS, J.

( 1 ) ORDER :- The revision is directed against an order of the District Judge, Bhilwara dated April 15, 1980, by which the plaintiff (revision-petitioner) was not permitted to file a document along with the re-joinder.

( 2 ) VERY few facts need narration for the disposal of this revision. The plaintiff which is a private limited company, instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,492. 38 p. against the defendants. According to the case set-up in the plaint, the plaintiff, in pursuance to the written agreements Ex. 1, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3, despatched were cone cotton yarn to the defendants and sent the bills and Hundies through the bank. The defendants took delivery of part of the goods but failed to take delivery of the bulk of the goods. The undelivered goods were received back by the plaintiff, which it sold in the open market at the prevailing rate. In doing so, the plaintiff incurred a loss of Rs. 34,492. 38 p. The suit was contested by the defendants. Issues were raised and evidence of the parties was recorded. The case was thereafter posted for final arguments. The defendants thereafter sought permission to introduce certain amendments in their written statement. The permission was granted to the defendants to amend the written statement and the plaintiff was allowed to file a re-joinder in respect of the amendments sought by the defendants. The plaintiff filed re-joinder and along with it, filed a copy of the notice on November 26, 1979. The amendment allowed to the defendants was to the effect that the goods could be sold by the plaintiff only after a notice to the defendants was served. The plaintiff, in its rejoinder, stated that notice was, in fact, given to the defendants. The District Judge did not permit the plaintiff to file a copy of that notice. Aggrieved against the said order, the plaintiff has come-up in revision.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 4 ) IN assailing the impugned order, it was vehemently contended by Mr. Mohta learned counsel for the plaintiff that the District Judge crept into an error in not permitting the plaintiff to file a copy of that notice which was served on the defendants. It was argued that re-joinder is a part of the pleadings. The defendants had sought the amendment that no notice was served to them before the sale of the goods. The re-joinder was to the effect that the notice was, in fact, served on the defendants by the plaintiff. The copy of the notice was to be produced in evidence in answer to the case set-up by the defendants in their written statement. As such, the provisions of O. 7, R. 14 or O. 13, R. 1, C. P. C. are not applicable. The District Judge should have allowed the production of this document under O. 18, R. 2, C. P. C. because it was produced in answer to the case set-up by the defendants. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on a few decisions of various High Courts. It was, on the other hand, contended by Mr. Shishodia learned counsel for the defendants that it was the duty of the plaintiff to aver in the plaint that the goods were sold after a notice to the defendants. It was nowhere mentioned in the plaint that any such notice was served. The District Judge was, therefore, correct in not allowing the plaintiff to produce the copy of the notice at the late stage. It was also argued that the copy of the notice was not free from suspicion and does not bear signatures of the person by whom it was sent. It was also argued that this Court should be slow in interfering with a discretionary order passed by the Court below during trial of a suit. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration. It may be stated at once that there is no pronouncement of this Court on the dispute involved and on the scope and object of O. 18, R. 2, C. P. C.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the defendants were allowed the amendment in their written statement and the plaintiff was permitted to file