SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Raj) 629

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.M.Kasliwal, J.
Mool Chand Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Hari Shanker Sharma - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision petition No. 303 of 1988.
Decided On : 12-07-1988

The defendant's right to produce documents at any stage is subject to showing good cause for the late production.

Headnote:

Late Production of Documents - Ejectment Suit - The court held that no good cause was shown for the late production of documents at the fag end of the trial. The defendant was fully aware of the case and had ample opportunity to produce the evidence at an earlier stage. The defendant's right to produce documents at any stage is subject to showing good cause for the late production.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of a shop based on default in rent payment, sub-letting, and personal necessity. The suit was filed in 1980, and issues were framed in 1981. The defendant sought to produce documents under Order 13 Rule 2, CPC at a late stage of the trial, which was dismissed by the trial court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that no good cause was shown for the late production of documents by the defendant. The defendant had ample opportunity to produce the evidence at an earlier stage and failed to provide a valid reason for the delay.

Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant had a valid reason for the late production of documents under Order 13 Rule 2, CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The defendant's right to produce documents at any stage is subject to showing good cause for the late production. In this case, the court found that no good cause was shown for the late production of documents at the fag end of the trial.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to disallow the late production of documents by the defendant.

JUDGMENT

1. - This revision by the defandant is directed against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur city Court No 2 dated November 11, 1987. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment of a shop on the ground of default in the payment of rent, sub-letting and reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the plaintiff. The suit was filed on March 12, 1980. Issues in the case were framed on August 10, 1981. Both the parties led their evidence and thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments On October 9, 1987 the arguments of the plaintiff's counsel were completed and thereafter, the case was fixed for the arguments of the learned Counsel for the defendant on October 12, 1987. An adjournment was sought on behalf of the defendant and the case was adjourned to October 13, 1987. Again an adjournment was sought and the case was fixed on October 15, 1987. On October 15, 1987 also an adjournment was sought and the case was fixed on October 17, 1987 for arguments of the learned Counsel for the defendants. On October 17, 1987 an application was filed on behalf of the defendant Under Order 13 Rule 2, CPC for producing certain documents in evidence. The said application was dismissed by the trial court by order dated November 11 1987 The defendant aggrieved against the said order has filed this revision.

2. It was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the document even if submitted at late stage should not have been disallowed by the trial court. It is submitted that the documents filed in the present case were beyond suspicion and necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on Gyaniram v. Gulab Chand, 1960 RLW 321 , and Municipal Council, Bharatpur v. Gokul Chand, 1987 RLW 640 .

3. Mr. Keshote, learned Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand submitted that no good cause has been shown for the late production of the documents. The suit was filed as back as on March 12, 1980 and issues were framed on August 10, 1981. The defendant was fully alive with the case and no reason has been shown as to why the documents were not produced at the time of framing of the issues or even when the evidence was being led by the parties. It was also argued that an application Under Order 13 Rule 2 was submitted by the defendant on November 21, 1983 but even in that application these documents now sought to be produced were not mentioned. It is further submitted that the documents were in the possession of defendant and could have been produced at early stage. Mr. Keshote also submitted that the plaintiff seriously disputes the genuineness of the documents sought to be produced by the defendant.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. The present suit for ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of rent, reasonable and bonafide personal necessity and sub-letting is pending since March, 1980. Issues were framed as early on August 10, 1981. The defendant was fully alive about his case on the basis of the issues framed in the present case and had full opportunity to produce the evidence which he now seeks to produce Under Order 13 Rule 2 No good cause has been shown for the late production of the documents at the fag end of the trial of the case. As already mentioned above even the arguments of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff were closed on October 9, 1987 and thereafter the case was fixed for arguments of the learned Counsel for the defendant. An adjournment was sought on three dates and thereafter on October 17, 1987 the present application was filed Under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC. The trial court held that no good cause has been shown by the defendant for the late production of the documents in the present case. The defendant does not have a right to produce the document at any stage and he has to show a good cause for filing the documents at late



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top