1. The petitioner/defendant has challenged the Order dated 04.05.2006 passed by the 2nd Addl. Munsiff, Jammu, dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant for permission to file the documents in terms of Order 13 Rule 2 of C.P.C., read with Section 151 C.P.C.

2. It is necessary to notice the brief facts of the case, which have given birth to this revision petition.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for prohibitory injunction with the prayer that the petitioner/defendant be restrained from raising any construction on the eastern wall on the grounds taken in the plaint. Precisely the case of the respondents/plaintiffs is that they are the owners and in possession of the shop situated at Dhaunthli Bazar, Jammu, the description of which is given in Para No.1 of the plaint. The defendant/petitioner is bent upon to raise construction of first floor of his house/shop from eastern side and to use the wall of the plaintiffs shop in order to lay lantern on it. Along side the suit the plaintiff also filed an application for grant of ad-interim relief which came to be granted by the trial Court and declined by the appellate Court i.e. District Judge, in terms of Order dated 13.11.1999 passed in file No.8/Appeal, titled `Rajinder Kumar V/S Vijay Kumar & Others.

4. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement, wherein he has made mention of a Sale Deed dated 17.03.1964, registered on 18.03.1964 and a Will Deed dated 30.12.1987, as well as Sanction granted by the Municipal Corporation, Jammu. He has also annexed the Photostat copies of the said documents i.e. Sale Deed, Will Deed and Sanction, with the written statement.

5. Issues came to be framed. The respondents/plaintiffs examined the witnesses and their evidence came to be closed vide Order dated 18.03.2005 and the petitioner/defendant came to be directed to lead evidence.

6. The petitioner/defendant moved an application allowing him to produce the original documents i.e. Sale Deed, Will Deed and Sanction granted by the Municipal Corporation, Jammu, the details whereof is given in the written statement and the Photostat copies whereof have already annexed with the written statement.

7. The respondents/plaintiffs have resisted the application on the grounds taken in the petition and ultimately the application came to be rejected in terms of the impugned order.

8. The core of question involved in this petition is whether the impugned order is revisable.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant made foundation of the arguments on the basis of a judgment of the Apex Court, reported in "Madan Lal V/S Shyam Lal" AIR 2002 SC 100.

10. While going through the judgment, it appears that in that case the defendant, in the written statement, has not made any reference of the documents sought to be produced. It is profitable and apt to reproduce Para No.3 of the judgment, which reads as under:-

"The facts of the case are that-respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 1.8.1992, of agricultural land and residential plot for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000.00. Appellant submitted written statement on 18.1.1996 and denied that he has executed any such agreement to sell in favour of the respondent and that respondent has misused his signatures taken on the blank stamp paper. After the evidence of witnesses of the respondent was recorded, appellant filed applications under Order 13 rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code for production of copy of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer regarding the acquisition of one bigha of agricultural land in dispute, electricity bill of his house and copy of the registered sale deed executed by the petitioner on 09.02.1987 in favour of one Nathu Ram pertaining to 900 sq. yds. of land which is also part of the suit property. Those applications filed by the appellant were rejected by the trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.1.2001 on the ground that plaintiff has closed his evidence and that defend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document