MEHTA, J. — In both these revision petitions, which are directed against the order dated 20.9.89 by which the learned Civil Judge has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C., following questions have been referred by a learned Single Judge for decision by a Division Bench.

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

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

(2). In order to answer the questions referred to the Division Bench, it will be proper to briefly narrate the facts, which are common to both the revision petitions.

(3). On 29.8.1984, the non-petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption of the disputed property and a portion of Haveli, two storied described in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint against the petitioners with the averments that the petitioner No.l and the non- petitioners are brothers and the non-petitioner has got half share in the disputed Haveli as per the registered family settlement dated 26.9.1981 which is comprised of joint chowk-pol and as such the petitioner has got a right of pre-emption in the disputed property. It was further averred in the plaint that petitioner No. 1 has sold a portion of the disputed property to the petitioner No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 24.7.84 for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- without giving any notice to him and therefore prayed for a decree of right of pre-emption in lieu of Rs. 10,000/- and for possession accordingly.

(4). Petitioners filed their separate written statements on 25.2.1985 and 25.1.1985 respectively and denied the averments of the plaint in toto. In para No. 10 and 14, it was specifically contended by the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 had dire necessity of money and is a near relative of the petitioner No. 2 being brother-in-law of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 and the non-petitioner came to Bhagwati Lal and asked about the necessity of Rs. 20,000/-. Since the matter related in between the near relatives, therefore, it was agreed between the petitioners. It was agreed that petitioner No. 1 will execute a registered sale deed in the name of the petitioner No. 2 and in case the money is returned back with interest, the petitioner No. 2 will re-register and get it resold in favour of petitioner No. 1.

(5). According to the petitioner, Bhagwati Lal gave Rs. 20,000/- to the Petitioner No. 1 and got executed a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-in his name for the upper storey and for the same consideration of lower storey in the name of his son Navratan. An agreement was also executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of Bhagwatilal to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 will return the aforesaid amount with interest within a month then he will get executed a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 returned the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/- to Bhagwatilal with interest, who in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner No.l.

(6). Learned trial court framed issues. Before the evidence of the plaintiff started, the petitioner No. 1 moved an application on 24.7.89 under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. for taking in evidence two documents i.e. an agreement dated 25.7.84 executed between Bharosilal and Bhagwatilal and the registered sale deed dated 4.9.89 in suit No. 10/89. In his application, the petitioner No.l has stated that the documents sought to be produced in evidence are necessary for the proper decision of the suit. It was submitted that the documents are genuine. They were not in power and p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document