Honble KOKJE, J.–Rajasthan Financial Corporation had filed a civil suit in the court of Additional District Judge, Beawar, District Ajmer. After trial of the suit was complete and the case was reserved for judgment, an application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was moved by the plaintiff. This application was rejected by the trial court holding that after the arguments were heard and case was closed for judgment, the Court was not compelled to accept any application from the parties. Aggrieved by that order, the Rajasthan Financial Corporation has filed this revision petition.

(2). The only point to be decided in the case is whether a party could move an application after the final arguments in the case were heard and the case was reserved for judgment.

(3). In Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar (1) in para 19, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

``In the present context when once the hearing starts, the Code contemplates only two stages in the trial of the suit: (1) where the hearing is adjourned or (2) where the hearing is completed. Where the hearing is completed the parties have no further rights or privilages in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that O.XX R.1 permits judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is completed...``There is thus no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncing the judgment so as to make it necessary for the Court to afford to the party the remedy of getting orders passed on the lines of O.IX R. 7.

(4). In view of this clear pronouncement, which is being on this Court, no further discussion is in fact necessary but as my attention has been drawn to several decisions some of which try to distinguish the aforesaid decision in Arjun Singhs case (supra), I consider it my duty to refer to and discuss the citations cited at the Bar.

(5). A single bench decision of this Court in Kishan Singh and others vs. Birbal Ram (2), has been cited. This ruling simply does not apply to the facts of the present case as in that case the application appears to have been made at the stage of arguments and not after the case was closed for judgment, though the court has observed that the counsel for the defendant had argued that the suit was fixed for final disposal. The point as to whether the application could be made after the closure of the case for judgment or not, had not been raised in that case and what the Court has decided, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others (3), is that if the document is necessary for disposal of the suit, it should be accepted even at the stage of arguments. The Supreme Court case relied upon in the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable on facts as the documents in that case were sought to be produced at the stage of arguments and not after the case was closed for judgment.

(6). Another decision of the Supreme Court in Altaf Khan vs. Mohd. Amin Khan and others (4), was also cited. This also is not a case in which the documents were sought to be produced between the closure of the case for judgment and pronouncement of judgment. The documents were sought to be produced at the belated stage in this case. This case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable.

(7). A Single Bench decision of this Court in RSEB vs. Lakhraj Oil (5), was also cited. This is also a case in which the documents were sought to be produced before the arguments were finally heard and the case was closed for judgment. This case would also therefore be of no use for the purpose of deciding the present revision petition.

(8). The next case relied upon was a Single Bench decision of M.P. High Court in Badri Prasad vs. S. Kripal Singh (6). In this case, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed after the case was posted for delivery of judgment. The learned single Judge made a distinction between an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC and an application under O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document