- (1.) THIS order will dispose of two cross-revisions No. 14 of 1951 filed by the plaintiff and 20 of 1051 filed by the defendants as both of them arise out of the same order passed by the learned Civil Judge.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Balkishan instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/-against the defendants Jugraj and Chaturbhuj on 15th of January, 1949 in the court of the learned Civil Judge. The suit was based on the ground that the plaintiff was the adopted son of the deceased Ranchhordas and that the predecessors in title of the defendants, namely, Parvati and her husband's brother Shivnath had incurred a liability in his favour to the extent of the amount claimed in the suit. Defendants did not admit the status of the plaintiff as an adopted son of Ranchhordas and put him to the proof of the claim preferred by him as they were ignorant of it. They admitted their status as legal representatives of Shivnath but pleaded that they were not the legal representatives of Parvati. Six months after the suit was instituted, defendants applied on 16th of July, 1949 under Order XI, Rule 12 for an order directing the plaintiff to make a discovery on oath of all the documents which were in his possession or power and related to the suit. PLAINTIFF gave a list of all the documents including those for the production of which he applied for permission under Order XIII, Rule 1 later on. Issues were framed on 22nd of November, 1949. The case was fixed for arguments in connection with an issue relating to misjoinder of defendants and causes of action on 17th of January, 1950. After the disposal of the issue on this date, the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 23rd of March, 1950. It appears that at this stage the plaintiff looked more carefully and closely into the matter and found that certain documents were in his possession and were material for the disposal of questions arising in the suit but had not been produced in court. He accordingly applied on 13th of February, 1950 under Order XIII, Rule 1 and also sec. 151 Civil Procedure Code for permission to file ten documents. This application came up before Mr. Farooqi on 12th of April, 1950. He rejected it on the following three grounds: - (1) That provisions of Order XIII, Rule 1 had no application after the striking of the issues. (2) That in order to enable the court to receive these documents at a subsequent stage, it was necessary to show good cause to the satisfaction of the court under Order XIII, Rule 2 for their non-production at the proper time but the plaintiff had failed to do so. (3) That section 151 did not apply inasmuch as specific provisions of the law applicable to the matter in dispute were contained in Order XIII. It appears that after the disposal of the above application, Mr. Farooqi was transferred and was succeeded by Mr. Raza Ali. The plaintiff took advantage of this fact and applied again on 24th of May, 1950 slating that he believed in a bona fide manner that since he had filed 'a list of all the documents while making a discovery, he was at liberty to produce them latter. The learned Civil Judge allowed seven documents to be produced on payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. He treated this apparently as an original application and concerned himself, it appears, only with one factor and that is whether the genuineness of these documents was beyond doubt. He did not take into consideration the important fact whether after a similar application had been rejected, it was open to him to entertain another which was by way of a review. Accordingly, the seven documents were allowed to be produced because three of them consisted of a registered deed, a judgment of a court and a certified copy while four happened to have been executed on stamped papers. The three documents rejected by him had been drawn up on stamped papers. The plaintiff urges in support of the revision filed by him that the three documents which were not allowed to be produced we're very old documents and had been executed, scribed and attested by persons who were all dead and that accordingly, their genuineness was beyond doubt. It is also urged that the amount of costs of this order was excessive and should be substantially reduced. On behalf of the defendant who has also filed a. revision, it is urged that the question of the amount of costs being reduced or the three documents being allowed to be produced does not arise as even the other documents which had been allowed to be produced by the learned Civil Judge should not have been received as an order rejecting them had already been passed by his predecessor and it was not open to him to entertain a review of that order. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, there appears to be considerable force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the defendants. It is not necessary in the view which I propose to take to go into the question that the plaintiff had been highly negligent in this matter and filed the application for the production of the various documents nearly one year after the institution of the suit. From the application filed by him in response to an order passed by the court directing him to make discovery on oath of the various documents in his possession or power, it is obvious that he has not at all been vigilant. The plea that these documents were in the possession of his mother, who was illiterate and that accordingly, till he received a notice from the court, he knew nothing about these documents, itself displays rank negligence on his part. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the previous application dated 13th of February, 1950 was rejected by Mr. Farooqi on 12th of April, 1950 giving detailed reasons which have been set out above showing why he could not take any action either under Order XIII, Rule 1 or Rule 2 of section 151. If the plaintiff wanted to attack this order in this very court, it was open to him to file an application for review under Order 47, Rule 2 and have a notice issued. The review would then have been entertained by his successor. But since this procedure was not adopted, an application for review was not competent. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner urges that this was not an application for review and was only an application under Order XIII Rule 2 giving cogent reasons for the admission of these documents. It is obvious that this argument is based on a misapprehension. So far as the grounds on which the admission of these documents had been rejected by Mr. Farooqi are concerned, they were contained in the order passed by him and no fresh occasion for those grounds being reconsidered could arise in law until the court was properly moved and that would only be by an application presented to Mr. Farooqi himself. In the circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order passed by Mr. Raja Ali allowing seven documents to be produced was altogether without jurisdiction. The petition for revision filed by the plaintiff, in the circumstances, fails and is hereby dismissed while the petition for revision filed by the defendants succeeds and is hereby accepted and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge allowing the seven documents to be produced on payment of costs set aside. No order as to the costs of these revisions in this court. .;