Honble KOKJE, J.–Heard Mr.R.R.Chacha, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Mr.L.R.Calla, learned counsel for the non-petitioner.

(2). An interesting question arises in this case and that is whether a party who has failed in bringing a particular document on record through an application under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. cannot bring the same evidence on record by calling a witness under Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C. to produce the original document. A certified copy of daily diary said to be filled in by the plaintiff in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer was sought to be produced along with an application under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. by the plaintiff. This application was rejected. Thereupon the plain- tiff called for the original diary through a witness from the Divisional Forest Officers Office. This was not done surreptitiously but by moving an application during the pendency of the plaintiffs own statement. The Court allowed the application. deferred the statement of the plaintiff and allowed the witnesses to be summoned for production of document. The witnesses produced the original diary and it seems a copy of that diary was kept on record which was the same document

Click Here to Read the rest of this document