Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 152/95, dismissing the application filed by the revisionists under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ``the Code).

(2). The application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code for taking the documents on record has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that the documents sought to be taken on record related to the year 1992; the suit was filed in 1995; issues were framed on 6.4.98; three witnesses had been examined by the other party; and the said application was filed on 5.9.2001. No sufficient case was shown by the revisionists for not filing the documents at an early stage.

(3). In Mt. Taibunnissa Begum vs. Jagdip Pandey & Ors. (1), interpreting the provisions of Order 13 RR. 1 and 2 of the Code, the Court held as under:-

``The provision of the said rule gives no discretion to the Court to receive evidence at a later stage than that mentioned in the previous rule unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non-production thereof. The rule is precise and excludes all documentary evidence produced at a ate period unless good cause is shown for its non-production. That rule has been found perhaps in some case, to work a certain amount of hardship and the tendency had, no doubt, been to endow to some extent at all events to enlarge the scope of the rule by allowing the late production of documents in a case where it is quite obvious that no prejudice would arise to the other party by their late production and where the genuineness of the documents sought to be admitted is beyond question.

(4). While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Calcutta, High Court in Taleswar Singh vs. Bhagwan Das (2),.

(5). In Bhekdhari Singh & Ors. vs. Sri Ramchanderji & Ors. (3), the Court held that provisions of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 of the Code were framed to prevent the abuse of process of the Court by giving an opportunity to the litigants to fabricate the documents and file the same at a belated stag. The court was dealing with taking of documents on record relating to Zamabadi in the form of loose-sheets which could be fabricated easily.

(6). A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in Mohini Mohan Saha & Ors. vs. The Province of Bengal (4), dealt with a land acquisition case for determining the market value of the land. The Court held that the provisions contained in Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code were attracted in the case and must be applied. The reason for delay in filing the documents, particularly one in the possession of the Acquiring Authority, must be satisfactory. The application filed for taking the documents on record did not contain any satisfactory reasons explaining the delay and, therefore, there was no occasion for the court to take the said documents on record allowing the said application. The Court further held as under:-

``The Court must record the reasons for allowing the document, in the possession of the party, to be filed late.... The order on the record also does not indicate any sufficient reasons. We must, therefore exclude EX. LL from our consideration.

(7). In Melappa & Anr. vs. Guramma & Ors., (5), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the aforesaid provision of the Code observing that under Rule 2 of Order 13, documentary evidence in the possession or power of the party, which should have been but has not bee produced, will not be allowed to be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown.

(8). In Gyaniram vs. Gulabchand (6), this Court has taken a view that there can be in jurisdiction in accepting the documents at a belated stage and rejection thereof cannot be held to be held to be not a sound exercise of discretion for the reason that the genuineness of the document may be doubted m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document