J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Plaintiff Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial Court dated August 16, 1979, whereby it dismissed his application for permission to produce certain documents.
(2.) ON March 19, 1978(sic) the Plaintiff Petitioner made an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file certain documents (16(sic) in all including the photostate copies of the agreement of assignment dated August 8, 1977, and the deed of assignment dated August 30, 1978, entered into between the Plaintiff and M/s Mahal Pictures Pvt. Ltd , Defendant No. 3). It has been stated in the application that in the suit although issues were framed on February 27, 1929(sic), no information was given to the Plaintiff regarding the same and other orders till he came to know about the same from the opposing counsel, hence necessary steps could not be taken in time. However, this application was contested by the Defendant Respondent No. 2. The trial Court vide its order dated August 16, 1979, rejected the application as regards the permission to produce the agreement of assignment and the deed of assignment referred to above while the production of other documents was allowed. The trial Court has unnecessarily written very lengthy judgment while disposing of the said application. The reasons for dismissing the application qua the said documents are that the application does not disclose sufficient cause contemplated under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the possibility of the fabrication of the documents, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the contesting Defendant, cannot be ruled out. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the trial Court has acted arbitrarily in the exercise of its jurisdiction and the grounds given by it are imaginary. It has been pointed out that the Plaintiff specifically mentioned these documents in para 4 of the plaint and Defendant No. 2 in the written statement filed by him has not denied the existence of these documents. The only plea taken by him in the written statement is that the agreement had no affect on his rights in any way. In preliminary objection No. 3, it has been stated that "the Plaintiff and the Defendants have no privity of contract. However if the Plaintiff claims that he steps into the shoes of Defendant No. 3, then he is nevertheless bound by the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the third Defendant and the second Defendant". In preliminary objection No. 10 it has been stated that "in law the alleged assignment is illegal and unlawful and the Defendant No. 3 could not enter into the alleged agreements dated August 8, 1977 and August 30, 1978, and also that there is no legal and valid assignment by the Defendant No. 3 in favour of the Plaintiff."
(3.) THUS according to the learned Counsel, it is apparent from the perusal of the pleadings, that Defendant No. 2 had at no stage specifically denied the execution of these documents. Moreover, the documents are not the basis of the suit, and therefore, it was not necessary to produce them along with the plaint as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These documents are required to prove the locus standi of the Plaintiff as he has stepped into the shoes of Defendant No. 3. As regards the good cause to be shown as contemplated by Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been contended that the genuineness of these documents could not be doubted as the same have already been relied upon in the plaint itself and Defendant No 2 has not denied their existence. It was further argued that the rules of procedure exist for furtherance of the cause of justice and not to hamper the same. Moreover, when certain other documents have been allowed by the Court, there was no reason to disallow these two documents particularly when delay is not the reason given by the trial Court.;