JASRAJ CHOPRA, J.—This case comes up before us on a reference being made by a learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 25 of 1989, Chouthmal and another V. Fazal Hussain vide his Order dated 21.7.1989. The learned single Judge has referred the following two questions for determination:

(1) Whether a subordinate court should not record reasons for refusing documentary evidence sought to be adduced under O. 13, R. 2 C.P.C. even though good cause has been shown for such late production and the document is a material one?

(2) Whether no revision would lie against an order by which a subordinate court has refused to accept documentary evidence under O. 13, R. 2 C.P.C. notwithstanding that good cause has been shown for late production and the document is of vital and material importance?

The aforesaid questions arise out of certain conflicting judgments rendered by different Benches of this Court and, therefore, the learned single Judge has thought it fit that as these questions are important, they, need to be decided by a larger Bench and hence, this case comes up before us.

2. As regards the first question, learned single Judge of this Court in Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. V. Union of India (l) and other connected revision petitions took the following view.

"It plainly says that no documentary evidence shall be received after the settlement of issues unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for its non-production and reasons shall be recorded for receiving it. Under the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the court has jurisdiction to hold rightly or wrongly that good cause to its satisfaction has been or has not been shown for the late production of a document. Such a decision has no relation to the question of jurisdiction of the Court. If the court has failed to record any reason for receiving any document at a late stage, it may be said that it has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The above quoted provisions specifically require the recording of reasons by the court while accepting a document. However, no reason is required to be recorded for not accepting a document at a late stage. In such a case, there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity."

Thus, according to the learned single Judge of this Court in Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd.s case (supra), recording of reasons by the Court are required only at the time of accepting the document. However, no reasons are required to be recorded for not accepting the document and in such a case, there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. In other words, against such an order refusing to accept the document, no revision petition will lie.

3. A similar view was expressed by Honble G.M. Lodha, J. in Radhey Shyam V. Nathuram (2) wherein it has been observed as follows—

"Whether a good cause has been shown under Order 13, R. 2 warranting admission of a document after framing of issues and whether the circumstances mentioned in the amended R. 17A of O. 13 for taking evidence even after it has been closed, are made out in a case or not, are questions on which the Court may express an opinion rightly or wrongly and while doing so, it may commit an error of law also by either wrong appreciation of the law on the point of the scope of Order 13, R. 2, C.P.C. or Order 3 8, r. 17 A or may commit a mistake in holding that there is no good cause when the one is proved but that would not result in bringing that case within any of the clauses (a), (b) or (c) or clause (1) of s. 115, C.P.C."

It was because of these two decisions, a difficulty arose before the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge felt that while deciding Jagjit cotton Textiles Mills Ltd.s case (supra), Honble Milap Chandra, J. has, taken the very extreme view when he has held that no reasons are required to be recorded for not accepting the document at a late stage.

4.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document