The court has the discretion to accept documents filed at a belated stage under O. 13 R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, if it is satisfied that the party has good and adequate grounds for not filing the documents at or before the settlement of issues.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been occasioned by the rejection of an application filed by the defendant 1 petitioner for acceptance of a document during recording of the evidence for defendant 1.

( 2 ) OPPOSITE parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed Original Suit No 145 of 1979 for deletion of the entry against plot No. 1955 in the record-of-rights that defendant 1 was in possession on the basis of an oral sale in 1966 and for correction thereof by recording the names of plaintiff 1 and Radhakanta Math, pro forma defendant 2, and for permanent injunction restraining defendant 1 from interfering with their possession.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF 1 is the widow of one Satrughna Patra and plaintiff 2 is her son. Satrughna purchased the disputed land by a registered sale deed Dt. 18-2-58. He possessed the same until his death in 1959. Thereafter the plaintiffs were in enjoyment. During the Hal Settlement operations, defendant 1 manipulated to obtain a note that he was in possession on the basis of an oral sale in 1966. The plaintiffs alleged that the north half belonged to them and the southern half belonged to pro forma defendant 2.

( 4 ) THE petitioner controverting the allegations averred that he was the elder brother of Satrughna. In 1954 there was a partition between Satrughna and him. The disputed plot belonged to one Kali Charan Misra and Radhakanta Math. The petitioner had amalgamated the same with his own contiguous land and had put a fence around. Satrughna wanted to purchase the land but he could not succeed due to the objection and resistance of the petitioner. He further obtained a nominal and collusive sale deed from Kalicharan. The Math being unsuccessful in evicting the defendant 1 entered into an arrangement with him and acknowledged his title. After death of Satrughna, disputes arose between the plaintiffs and him. To patch up he paid the plaintiffs Rs. 200/ -. He claimed prescriptive title. There was a Panchayati and the plaintiff 2 admitted before the members to have received Rs. 150/.

( 5 ) IN course of the trial plaintiff 2 was examined as P. W. 4. During his cross-examination defendant 1 filed four documents and a petition for acceptance with

reasons for the late filing. One of the documents was a joint petition dt. 5-3-75 filed before the Panchayat by the plaintiffs and defendant 1 requesting them to settle their disputes and their decision (the Panchayatinama referred to in para 9 of the written statement ).

( 6 ) THE trial Judge rejected the prayer in respect of the joint petition and the Panchayatinama while permitting the other documents to go in. During cross-examination plaintiff 2 was cross-examining with reference to the Panchayati and Panchayatnama. Plaintiff 2 admitted that Puma Chandra Patra was one of the Bhadraloks but disowned that the signature appearing on the Panchayatnama belonged to him. One 18-12-1982 defendant 1 again filed an application for acceptance of the Panchayatnama. The learned Munsif rejected the petition on the ground that no satisfactory ground had been furnished for the belated filing. The petitioner filed a further petition for acceptance of the document. Therein he furnished in detail the reasons for the late filing. He averred that the document had been scribed by one Purna Chandra Patra. Though he had sought to hand over the document, he could not, as the document was not traceable. Only on 17-12-82 he could trace out the document and hand over the same to the petitioner. The document was very vital and the plaintiffs would not be taken by surprise as reference thereto had been made in the written statement and plaintiff 2 had been cross-examined with reference to it. The learned Munsif again rejected the petition holding that the reasons were after-thought, the same not having been furnished in the earlier petition. The document had been filed by the petitioner and not by Purna Chandra. He further held that subsequent petition after rejection of an earlier petition was not ma