J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 10th Sept., 1988 whereby application filed by the defendants for seeking leave of the Court to receive certain documents was accepted partially whereas documents at Serial No. 2 in the said application were not allowed to be produced on record.
(2.) The plaintiff M/s. Jaspal Singh and Brothers filed a suit on 24th Sept., 1985 for recovery of money. However, amended plaint was filed on 24th Sept., 1986. The plaintiff closed his evidence on 10th Nov., 1987. The defendant filed the present application under Order XIII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure on 28th Jan., 1988 for placing certain documents on record. This application was resisted by the plaintiff. The trial Court, after going into the entire matter, declined to grant leave for production of statement of accounts and photo copies of the books of accounts whereas the production of the record mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the list attached with the application was fallowed. According to the trial Court, documents at Serial Nos. 1, 3 and 4 could not be said to have been prepared fraudulently whereas documents mentioned at Serial No. 2 of the list that is books of accounts of the defendant firm particularly the entries of Cash Book and ledger for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 were very much there with the defendant at the time of filing of the written statement. The reason for not filing the photo copies thereof has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Moreover, the possibility of preparing the books of accounts, at a later stage which are sought to be produced now, could not be ruled out.
(3.) The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that the trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction while declining the production of documents at Serial No. 2. According to the learned counsel, the said evidence was very material. Moreover, accounts of the plaintiff had been produced vide Exhibit D2 and that being so, there was no occasion for the trial Court to disallow the production of cash book and the ledger for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 particularly when they were authenticated by the Tax authorities. The question of the possibility of preparing the same at a later stage did not arise. In support of this, he referred: Ram Sarup Vs. Sant Lal, AIR 1972 Punjab 377. Madan Gopal Kanodia Vs. Mamraj Maniram and others, AIR 1976 S.C. 461. The Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd Vs. Roshan Lal Gupta and others, 1977 (1) Rent. L.R. 164 and Randhani Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Northern India Motion Pictures Association and others, 1980 P.L.R. 179.;