Sharad Kumar vs Laxman - 1997 Supreme(MP) 909

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.O. Vyas
For the Non-Appellant : T.N. Singh, S.L. Ahiwasi, A. Salim,

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – – O. 13 R. 2 (1) – – production of documents at subsequent stage – – documents certified copies and other documents out of suspicion – – evidence yet to begin – – cause of oversight shown – – production allowed.
       (2) Law – – is means and justice is end.
       (3) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – – S. 358 – – delay caused in production of document – opposite party may be a worded costs.
        Short Note
       1. The plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 9.3.1995 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Sendhwa in COS No. 21 – A/95 thereby rejecting the application presented under Order XIII Rule 2 of the aforesaid Code. .
       2. I have heard Shri D.D. Vyas, learned counsel for the plaintiff – appellants, Shri T.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Non – applicant No.1, Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for Non – applicant No.2 and Shri A. Salim, learned Panel Lawyer for Non – applicant No.3.
       3. Two factors clearly emerge – – One: The evidence is yet to begin and Two:
       4. The documents sought to be produced at subsequent stage are certified copies as also certain other documents, said to be beyond suspicion.
       5. True it is that the appellants – plaintiffs should have filed the list of documents in terms of Order VII Rule 14 (2) and should have produced all the documentary evidence of every description in terms of Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
       6. Order XIII Rule 2 (1) of the Code provides that no documentary evidence shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non – production thereof.
       7. As is clear from the order under challenge, the cause shown was the oversight in matter of production.
       8. Although the suit is of 1985, but as stated at the Bar, the evidence is yet to begin. On 31.3.95, further proceedings were stayed by this Court.
       9. After perusal of the order and consideration of submissions, I am satisfied that the order is not proper and shows that the jurisdiction has been exercised with material irregularity.
       10. Law is the means and justice its end. There is no proper reason for rejection of the application. As far as delay is concerned, the Non – applicant No.1 could have been compensated in terms of Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am satisfied that good cause is shown.
       11. In the result, I allow this revision petition, vacate the order dated 9.3.1995 and allow the application presented under Order XIII Rule 2 (IA.No.3) of the Code of Civil Procedure subject to payment of Rs. 50/ – , as costs to the Non – applicant No.1.
       12. The revision petition is accordingly allowed, but with no orders as to costs. The order of stay now stands vacated. The Trial Court shall proceed expeditiously and make an endeavour to decide the suit by 31.12.97. Parties shall co – operate in this regard.
       13. The Non – applicants shall have the liberty to file the documents in rebuttal through proper application in the trial Court before recording of the evidence in the suit.