Decided on December 10,1993

MAYA DEVI Appellant
Sandeep Khamnotra Respondents


- (1.)THE petitioner is one of the defendants in an injunction suit pending before learned Sub -Judge, Jammu. She wanted to produce one memorandum of partition -deed executed by her and respondents 2 to 4 dated 8.3.1976 at belated stage. The trial court has, however, refused to receive the document by order dated 18.3.1993. Hence this revision.
(2.)MR . J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has committed patent illegality by refusing to receive the document which is a registered document and genuineness of which is not in dispute. The document stood referred to in the written statement and was crucial for the just decision of the case. He argued that the petitioner has failed to produce the document in time due to inadvertance and this was a good cause within the meaning of Order 13 rule 2 C.P.C. to warrant the receipt of the document by the trial court. He pleaded that the court below had proceeded on a wrong assumption by rejecting the petitioners prayer on the ground that the plaintiff would be prejudiced in the process as his evidence had been closed. According to him, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff because the statement of the petitioner -defendant had yet to be recorded. He sought support from AIR 1984 Delhi 439 and AIR 1984 Patna 223.
(3.)MR . Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 justified the order impugned and submitted that the petitioner had failed to show any good cause to produce the document in question at a belated stage. He claimed that enormous prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the document was allowed to be received in evidence.
I have heared learned counsel for the parties and examined the judgment impugned and also the record.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.