Honble YADAV, J.–Heard.

(2). Perused the order impugned dated 30.1.99 passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application moved by the defendant-revisionist under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC.

(3). Without delineating the facts of the present revision it is to be noticed that an identical question came up for consideration before me in the case of I.B.P. Co- mpany Ltd. and another vs. Smt. Chandra Bai and others (1), wherein it was held that against an order either receiving documentary evidence under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC or refusing to receive such documentary evidence under the aforesaid sub-rule, no revision petition under amended Sec.115CPC is maintainable.

(4). It is urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. A.L. Chopra that while I was deciding the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra), two decisions rendered by two different Division Benches of this Court in the case of Bharosi Lal vs. Mool Chand (2) and in the case of Chouth Mal vs. Fazal Hussain (3), were not brought to my notice wherein it is ruled that against an order refusing to receive documentary evidence under O.13, R.2 CPC, a revision petition is maintnainable under amended Sec. 115 CPC.

(5). On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta urged that in both the aforesaid decisions of the Division Benches, holding that a revision petition against refusal to receive documentary evidence under sub- rule(1) of 2 of Order 13 is maintainable under amended Sec.115 CPC, the true import of the mandatory provisions envisaged under sub-section (2) of Sec. 115 read with Order 13 Rule 3 CPC and the mandatory provisions postulated under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC had escaped the notice of the learned Judges constituting two different Division Benches of this Court. According to Mr. Gupta if the aforesaid mandatory provisions would have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges constituting two different Division Benches of this Court then the result of the aforesaid two decisions would have been otherwise and the learned Judges constituting the Division Benches would have arrived to the same conclusion on which this Court has arrived in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra).

(6). It is conceded at the Bar that the decision rendered by me in the case of I.B.P Company Ltd. (supra), holding that no revision petition under amended Sec.115 CPC is maintainable against an order of receiving documentary evidence under Order 13, Rule 2 CPC is not in conflict with the two decisions rendered by two different Division Benches, therefore, it does not require reconsideration. However, the proposition propounded by me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra) to the effect that even an order of refusing to receive documentary evidence under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is not evisable under amended Sec. 115 CPC there is conflict between the decision rendered by me and the two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, therefore, it requires reconsideration.

(7). I have given my thoughtful anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar.

(8). It is true that the ratio of the decision rendered by me in the case of I.B.P. Company Ltd. (supra) is to the effect that no revision petition is maintainable under amended Sec.115 CPC either against an order receiving documentary evidence or against an order refusing to receive documentary evidence under 0.13 R.2 CPC whereas the ratio of the two decisions of the Division Benches is that against an order refusing to receive documentary evidence under 0.13 R.2 CPC, a revision petition is maintainable under amended Sec.115 CPC. It is further to be noticed that the ratio in the case of Chouth Mal (supra) rendered by the Division Bench of principal seat at Jodhpur, is confined upto the point of reference made to it relating to maintainability of revision under amended Sec. 115 CPC against refusal to receive documentary evidence under O.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document