ISRANI, J.— This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29 10.1986 passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also pursed the impugned order as well as the law cited at the bar.

3. The contention of Mr. G.K. Garg, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that an application was filed on 6. 12. 1983 for bringing 3 documents on record, all of which are certified copies of judgments of various courts and therefore, are above suspicion. The application was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that it is belated and that the affidavit filed in support of the application was not in terms of the application itself and no reasonable cause has been shown for filing the documents late. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel that the judgments relate to a suit filed against Brijlal father of the plaintiff non-petitioner No, 1, by one Rehimulla. The judgments relate regarding the disputed land and the case was decided against Brijlal who filed an appeal and revision, which were also dismissed. It is, therefore, contended that these are relevant documents for just and proper decision of the case, in which the plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 claims to be the owner of the disputed land. It is pointed out that in the affidavit filed in support of the revision application, it was stated by the Commissioner of Nagar Parishad, Bharatpur that the source of imforma-tion regarding existence of the documents was from official record. It is pointed out that the officer in-charge of the case in the trial courts got information regarding existence in the documents in question from Pannalal which fact was mentioned in the official record by him. The Commissioner, therefore, rightly wrote in his affidavit that his source of information regarding these documents was from the official record. Therefore, there was no contradiction between the facts mentioned in the application under order 13 R. 2 and the affidavit given in support of the same. It is, therefore, submitted that the documents being above suspicion and the certified copies of the judgments of various courts regarding the disputed land should be admitted so that, justice can be done to the parties.

4. Learned counsel Shri R.S. Kejriwal, appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner has supported the order of the trial court and has raised a preliminary objection that no revision lies against the impugned order, by which the application under order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. has been dismissed. He has placed reliance on the case of Radhey Shyam vs. Nathu Ram (1), in which it was held by this court that when an application under order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. has been dismissed, no revision lies against the same. It is, therefore contended that the revision petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further contended that the documents sought to be produced on record are not relevant and no good reason has been shown for late production of the same. It is also pointed out that the evidence of the plaintiff non-petitioner has been closed and it will be improper to permit the production of documents at this stage, when the case is ripe for final arguments. He has also drawn my attention to the case of Manin-dra Land and Building Corp. Ltd. vs. Bhootnath Benerji (2), in which their Lordships held while considering, the application filed under O. 22 Rule 9(2) and (4) C.P.C., that the subordinate court exercises its discretion in favour of the applicant and found that sufficient cause existed to condon the delay. This decision did not involve the question regarding irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or illegal assumption of jurisdiction. It was, therefore, held that interference by the High Court in revision was an error in law. It is therefore, submitted by the learned counsel t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document