1985 Supreme(MP) 617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. AWASTHY, J.
Damodar - Applicant
Vs.
Sharat Kumar - Respondents
C.R. 629 of 1983 (J)
Decided On : 09-08-1985

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 13, R. 2 – application filed late – documents necessary for fair adjudication – application should be allowed subject to costs.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 6, R. 16 – amendment application filed late – should be allowed if necessary for fair adjudication – cost may he imposed.

        Short Note

       1. The case was fixed for recording evidence of the parties on 31 – 7 – 1982. On that date, an application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC was filed for taking certain documents on record. The trial Court allowed the said application. The plaintiff and his witnesses were examined on that date and the case of the plaintiff was closed. The case was thereafter fixed for recording evidence of the defendants witnesses on 16 – 9 – 1982. The defendants filed an application dated 11 – 9 – 1982 for taking certain documents on record. They are photographs of the suit house. certified copy of a sale – deed and a photograph of some Dinesh Printing Press alleging to be belonging to the plaintiff. These documents were alleged to be necessary for full and final adjudication of the suit. On 8 – 10 – 1982, the defendants again filed two applications (I.A No. 16 and 17) under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file certain more documents with an application to amend the written statement. All these applications were, however, rejected by the trial Court. These orders are impugned in this revision.

       Held : The applications under Order 13, Rule 2 were for filing a map of the suit house and some other documents and the application for amendment of the written statement was for incorporating a plea specifically denying the correctness of the map filed by the plaintiff.

       2. Though there was a delay in filing the applications yet, it was necessary for a fair adjudication of the suit that these applications should have been allowed though, of course, subject to costs for the delay in filing the applications. Since the map of the suit house was presented on the date when the defendants had filed their written statement, it was not possible for them on that date to specifically plead about the correctness of the plaint map. This application ought to have been allowed. The defendants are, therefore, permitted to incorporate the amendment sought to be introduced in the written statement. The map filed by them be taken on record. The plaintiff will be at liberty to amend his pleading and, if necessary, to file documents and lead evidence in rebuttal.

       3. I direct that ail the documents filed with the application under Order XIII, Rule 2, CPC be taken on record. The plaintiff had filed a receipt dated 8 – 10 – 1978 which was not taken on record vide, order sheet dated 31 – 7 – 1982. The plaintiff is permitted to prove the said receipt. Revision allowed.