RAM SARAN Vs. BANSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' application in revision against an interlocutory order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Mandi on 27-6-1952 whereby he allowed the plaintiff-respondent's application dated 12-6-1952 for production of additional documentary evidence. The suit was for recovery of an amount alleged to be due on a bond said to nave been executed by Mt. Nardu, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. The parties had closed their evidence on 26-5-1952, arguments were heard on 315- 1952 & 13-6-1952 was the date fixed for pronouncement of judgment. The aforesaid application en behalf of the plaintiff was filed, as stated above, one day before the date fixed for pronouncement of the judgment, and the additional documentary evidence sought to be produced consisted of the previous bonds executed by Mt. Nardu since the time when she originally took the loan from the plaintiff.

(2.) The application purported to be one under Section 151, C. P. Code. It stated that the consideration of the bond in suit consisted of the amounts borrowed on a number of previous bonds, and that the plaintiff had succeeded in tracing those previous bonds only when the application, was filed. The application was supported by an affidavit.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has remarked in his order, which is the subject- matter of the present revision, that the plaintiff failed to produce the bonds in question although a suggestion was thrown out by the Court while the plaintiff was adducing his evidence that he had to go back to the time when the debt was originally advanced. He has further remarked that the failure of the plaintiff to take the suggestion at the earlier stage appeared to have been due to the fact that the importance of the production of the earlier bonds was then not realized, or to the fact that the bonds in question would require payment of deficiencies and penalties of stamp duty. These latter remarks appear however to be in the nature of mere surmises since the bonds themselves were not produced with the aforesaid application of the plaintiff dated 12-6-1952 and these reasons do not appear in the application itself. The ground on which the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application was that the documentary evidence sought to be produced was not such as could be concocted, and he did so in exercise of his inherent powers under Section 151, C. P. Code, because he was of the view that there was no other specific provision of the Code under which the plaintiff could file the application for production of the additional evidence.