- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated May 2, 1929, passed by Sub Judge 1st class, Chandigarh declining to treat issue No. 3 as preliminary. ' The aforesaid issue related to jurisdiction of the Court to try fee suit. It was observed that such issue was dependant upon facts and law which could be decided only after evidence is led by the parties
(2.) THE provisions made in the Code of Civil Procedure are meant to be followed so that substantial justice is done between the parties, Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure imposes a duty on the plaintiff to produce document in his possession or power along with the plaint By keeping back such documents which are basis of the suit, it was not expected of the plaintiff to urge that any issue arising between the parties could only be decided on the evidence to be produced. The present is the case where the plaintiff has dispatched certain goods through a carrier The dispute having been occurred the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of money 00 account of damages on account of non-delivery of goods to the tune of Rs. 2,22,344. The goods were dispatched from Chandigarh for delivery at Gowahati On behalf of the defendants, twice applications were moved calling upon the plaintiff to produce the contract i. e. the goods receipt No order seems to have been parsed on those applications and after the issues arc framed including issue No. 3 relating to jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit the impugned order was passed.
(3.) IF the document i. e. the goods receipt/contract had been produced along with the plaint, there was an opportunity for the defendants to admit or deny the same. In case the defendants had admitted tie same, there was no question of formal proof of such a document and if the question of jurisdiction is dependant upon consideration of such a document the same could be decided even without getting otter oral evidence on the record in the present case, therefore, while allowing tie revision petition a direction is. given to the trial Court to call upon the plaintiff to produce the goods receipt and other documents relied upon, in. his possession and thereafter to decide as to whether the question of jurisdiction can be decided on going through the same or not Still if it considers further evidence would be necessary, if the document is not admitted by the defendants, he can pass fresh order according to law There will be no order as to costs. the parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on October 8, 1990.;