Honble YADAV, J.–Heard.

(2). Perused the order impugned dated 3.1.98 passed by the learned trial court allowing the application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC moved by the plaintiff-non-petitioners and rejecting the objection raised by the defendant-revisionists against receiving documentary evidence under the aforesaid Rule for the purposes of cross-examination of witnesses of the defendant-revisionists.

(3). It is urged by the learned counsel for the revisionists that learned trial court has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order inasmuch as the documents received in evidence after settlement of issues are irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. According to the learned counsel for the revisionists, if the order impugned is allowed to stand it would occ- asion a failure of justice and irreparable loss to the defendant-revisionists.

(4). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is disputing the correctness of the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists on the ground that the documents which are required to be received in evidence either under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 or under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC must be genuine but its relevancy and admissibility is to be examined at a subsequent stage as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Order 13, C.P.C.

(5). For better and deeper appreciation of the aforesaid rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties the relevant provisions on the subject is required to be noticed in chronological order. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 or Order 13, CPC prior to the amendment in 1976 required the parties or their pleaders to produce the documentary evidence ``at the first hearing of the suit whereas after amendment, the documentary evidence is to be produced ``at or before the settlement of issues. The solemn object of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC is not to penalise the parties but the courts are given discretion to receive any documentary evidence at later stage of the suit after settlement of issues provided there is no suspicion in the mind of the courts relating to authenticity of such documents sought to be produced under the aforesaid Rules of Civil Procedure Code either by the plaintiffs or defendants.

(6). A conjoint reading of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC re- veal that the courts are empowered to consider not only reason for non-production but the authenticity of the document and delaying effect of the reception in evidence of the document in question. The aforesaid Rules of Order 13, CPC are to be construed liberally so as to advance justice between the parties. The documents whether public or private if its authenticity is beyond suspicion should be ordinarily received in evidence by the trial courts under Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties leaving the question relating to relevancy and admissibility to be decided at later stage of the suit as envisaged under Rule 3 of Order 13, CPC. The courts while receiving evidence after settlement of issues are under legal ob- ligation to give opportunity of rebuttal to the other party against whom such documentary evidence is received on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit and proper in the circumstance of the each case.

(7). It is true that the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 13, CPC postulate that the court may at any stage of the suit reject document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible after recording the grounds of such rejection in writing. In the aforesaid Rule 3 of Order 13 CPC the stage of the suit at which the document is to be rejected by a trial court is not specified. Looking into the backlog of the cases pending in the higher courts and sub-ordinate courts and also to save the public time, it is held that where a court has doubt about relevancy and ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document