1. Subash Chander, plaintiff, has filed this revision petition questioning Learned Additional District Judge, Reasis Order dated 20th March, 2007, allowing Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Katras application seeking production of documents which could not be inadver-tently placed on records before framing of the issues.

2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that `inadvertence, projected as a ground for non-production of documents before the framing of issues would not fall within the expression `good cause occurring in Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, warranting permission to the respondent-Shrine Board, to produce the documents at the later stage. He thus questions the impugned order placing reliance on Smt. Maya Devi v. Sandeep Khamnotra and others, reported as 1995 SLJ 95.

3. Mr. U.K.Jalali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Shrine Board, on the other hand, submits that some of the documents were the certified copies of the public records, production whereof could not be objected to under law because authenticity of the originals thereof cannot be doubted. Regarding rest of the documents, learned counsel urged that one of the documents stood referred in the written statement of the Board and the other was plaintiffs letter in original which he had written to the Additional Chief Executive Officer of the Shrine Board and production of these documents cannot be legitimately objected to by the petitioner-plaintiff who had yet to lead his evidence to support his case and meet the defence of the respondent-Board and that production of these documents was not likely to cause any prejudice to the case of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the documents sought to be produced were essential for the just decision of the case and were relevant to decide the controversy which was pending before the trial Court as to whether the plaintiff was a tenant or a licensee of the premises in question.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is no doubt true that a learned Single Judge of this Court had taken a view that "inadvertence" urged as the cause for non-production of documents at the time when these were required to be produced, would not furnish "good cause" for non-production thereof as contemplated by Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that another learned Judge of the Court, (the then Lord Chief Justice), while commenting upon the powers of the Court to permit production of documents at a later stage, had advocated a liberal exercise of power in allowing production of documents which were necessary for the just decision of the case.

7. I would refer to the views of two learned Judges of the Court on Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which read thus:

"In Maya Devis case, it was held as follows:- "A crucial requirement that a party has to satisfy for production of a document at a later stage, is to show a `good cause for its non-production at the relevant stage. In other words, the party has not to show a mere `cause but something more than that and the cause shown must be `good. It cannot be disputed that there is a difference of degree between a `cause and `a good cause. Any-thing can be advanced as a `cause but to make out a `good cause implies an additional obligation to show the plausibility of soundness of cause. Whether a party shows such `good cause. It is for the court concerned to feel satisfied about it. To make it very clear it is the satisfaction of the trial court, and the trial court alone, that matters and the High Court has no scope to interfere where such satisfaction proceeds on a valid reasoning. It would be a different matter if the satisfaction is assumed perversely, arbitrarily, unreasonably or irrationally. Viewed thus, a party pleading that he did not produce the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document