JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS case comes up before us on a reference being made by a learned single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 25 of 1989, Chouthmal and another V. Fazal Hussain vide his Order dated 21. 7. 1989. The learned single Judge has referred the following two questions for determination: (1) Whether a subordinate court should not record reasons for refusing documentary evidence sought to be adduced under O. 13, R. 2 C. P. C. even though good cause has been shown for such late production and the document is a material one? (2) Whether no revision would lie against an order by which a subordinate court has refused to accept documentary evidence under O. 13, R. 2 C. P. C. notwithstanding that good cause has been shown for late production and the document is of vital and material importance? The aforesaid questions arise out of certain conflicting judgments rendered by different Benches of this Court and, therefore, the learned single Judge has thought it fit that as these questions are important, they, need to be decided by a larger Bench and hence, this case comes up before us.
(2.) AS regards the first question, learned single Judge of this Court in Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. V. Union of India (l) and other connected revision petitions took the following view. "it plainly says that no documentary evidence shall be received after the settlement of issues unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for its non-production and reasons shall be recorded for receiving it. Under the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the court has jurisdiction to hold rightly or wrongly that good cause to its satisfaction has been or has not been shown for the late production of a document. Such a decision has no relation to the question of jurisdiction of the Court. If the court has failed to record any reason for receiving any document at a late stage, it may be said that it has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The above quoted provisions specifically require the recording of reasons by the court while accepting a document. However, no reason is required to be recorded for not accepting a document at a late stage. In such a case, there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. " Thus, according to the learned single Judge of this Court in Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. 's case (supra), recording of reasons by the Court are required only at the time of accepting the document. However, no reasons are required to be recorded for not accepting the document and in such a case, there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. In other words, against such an order refusing to accept the document, no revision petition will lie. A similar view was expressed by Hon'ble G. M. Lodha, J. in Radhey Shyam V. Nathuram (2) wherein it has been observed as follows - "whether a good cause has been shown under Order 13, R. 2 warranting admission of a document after framing of issues and whether the circumstances mentioned in the amended R. 17a of O. 13 for taking evidence even after it has been closed, are made out in a case or not, are questions on which the Court may express an opinion rightly or wrongly and while doing so, it may commit an error of law also by either wrong appreciation of the law on the point of the scope of Order 13, R. 2, C. P. C. or Order 3 8, r. 17 A or may commit a mistake in holding that there is no good cause when the one is proved but that would not result in bringing that case within any of the clauses (a), (b) or (c) or clause (1) of s. 115, C. P. C. " It was because of these two decisions, a difficulty arose before the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge felt that while deciding Jagjit cotton Textiles Mills Ltd. 's case (supra), Hon'ble Milap Chandra, J. has, taken the very extreme view when he has held that no reasons are required to be recorded for not accepting the document at a late stage. The learned single Judge has further referred to a decision of this court in Municipal Council, Bharatpur V. Gokul Chand (3) wherein I. C. Israni, J. has held that the Amending Act of 1976 has amended the provisions of S. 115, C. P. C. and has increased the scope of revision and, therefore, refusal to accept such a document shall amount to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. Reference has also been made to a decision of this Court in Banshilal V. Smt. Chhaganidevi (4) wherein it was observed as follows: "so far as the question of interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction is concerned, suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the learned Addl. Munsif has committed a material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction while not accept the present receipt as he ought to have accepted the same. It will not prejudice any of the parties because the evidence has not been recorded so far. " In this respect we may also notice a decision of this Court in Nanu Ram V. Vardichand That case also related to the refusal of documents at the trial stage. In that case it, was observed as follows - "where documents were sought to be produced by the plaintiff after framing of issues but before evidence and thereafter, even additional issue was framed and the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that he could not produce them at the earlier stage as he was prevented by his sudden illness in another place and there was no counter affidavit controverting the fact" It was held on the basis of the aforesaid facts that the application for production of documents could not be said to be vexatious and dilatory and the lower court acted improperly in refusing to receive the documents, and consequently, the revision petition was allowed. In this case, this question was not directly at issue whether the revision petition is maintainable against an order passed under 0. 13, 2. C. P. C. This fact was noticed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Radhey Shyam's case (supra) and it was held that when this question was not directly at issue in Nanu Ram's case (supra), that decision is of no assistance. In view of these conflicting judgments, the learned single Judge felt that the matter is of vital importance and, therefore, a reference be made to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the aforesaid questions. While making the reference, the learned Judge felt that the documents which may be produced under O. 13, R. 2 C. P. C. may be classified in three classes. Firstly, the document sought to be adduced may be wholly irrelevant and may have no bearing on the case at all. In refusing to accept such documents, the Court would not be committing any error of jurisdiction and such an order would not be amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. In second class of documents, the documentary evidence sought to be adduced may be relevant but then it may not have much impact on the case either way. The document sought to be produced may not tilt the balance of the case on merits at all and its impact maybe altogether neutral. If such document is refused, notwithstanding that good or sufficient cause has been made out for late production, a revision would not lie because the jurisdiction exercised could not be said to be irregular However, matters shall stand differently if the document sought to be adduced is relevant and has a material being on the case and good and sufficient cause has been made for its late production. After mentioning the three classes of documents, the learned single Judge has observed that in his view refusal to accept such a document will amount to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. It was further observed that although it is true that order 13 R. 2 (1) does not specifically require the court refusing such evidence to record the reasons for refusal but the principles of natural justice would require that a court refusing to accept such a document passes a speaking order regarding the reasons for not accepting such document. In this respect the learned single Judge further observed as under - "in my humble opinion, where such documentary evidence is of vital importance and may affect the merits of case and may tilt the balance of the case one way or other, refusing to accept such evidence is likely to result in failure of justice and in some cases, mis-carriage of justice. If in such a case, the documentary evidence is not received, inspite of the fact that good cause is shown for late production thereof, the Court would be committing not merely an error of law but an error of jurisdiction and such an order may amount to failure to exercise a jurisdiction vested in the Court by law. At any rate, it would be tantamount to acting in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or at any rate, with material irregularity. " After expressing his own aforesaid views, the learned single Judge has observed that Hon'ble Milap Chandra, J. was probably aware of this position and this is why, his Lordship observed as follows - "in all these four cases, the trial courts have given reasons in their orders for not receiving the documents. None of the documents is going to effect the ultimate decision of the case in which it has been filed. " The learned single Judge further felt that this would go to show that the proposition laid down by his Lordship may not be applicable to a case, where the document sought to be produced is material and of vital importance. It was in the back drop of this conflict in the decisions that these two questions have been referred to us for decision. Before, we decide the first question, it will be useful here to quote the provisions of Order XIII, R. 2 C. P. C. which run as follows - "o. XIII R. 2 C. P. C. Effect of non-production of documents: (1) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of R. 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof; and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. (2) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents - (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. " Order 13, r. 2 C. P. C. has two parts. The first part casts a duty upon the party concerned to show good cause for non-production of the document before settlement of issues at the suit. The second part casts a duty upon the court to record its reasons for receiving such evidence. The reason which the court is to record for receiving such document, cannot be limited by the first part of the said provision. The court besides receiving a document and accepting the cause of delay is yet to apply its mind to find out even though in a summary manner that prima facie the document is a genuine document and that the document is relevant. Thus, the Court before whom, an application under O. 13 R. 2 C. P. C. has been made, has to apply its mind to two things. Firstly, it has to determine whether the party concerned has shown a good cause for non-production of the document before settlement of issues at the suit and that satisfaction has also to be a judicial satisfaction and it must be based on reasons. The Court will have to indicate in its order whether the reasons given by the applicant are sufficient or not and that sufficiency will have to be judged by the Court based on its judicial satisfaction and, therefore, this very much contemplates a speaking order by the Court as to whether the late production of the document has been explained satisfactorily to the satisfaction of the court or not. True it is, that it has been provided in O. 13, R. 2 C. P. C. that after showing good cause to the satisfaction of the Court for late production of the documents, still the court has discretion to receive any such documentary evidence on record and if it so receives, it has to record reasons for it. Thus, after coming to the conclusion that the delay has been satisfactorily explained or not explained, the Court is still required to decide whether the document has to be admitted in evidence. If the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, the Court may reject the application but if it has been satisfactorily explained, still the Court will have to decide whether the documents are relevant or not and whether they are genuine or not and if the Court comes to the conclusion that they are genuine and relevant, it will have to record reasons for admitting them.
(3.) IT was strenuously contended by Mr. N. M. Lodha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that O. 13 R. 2 C. P. C. only requires the Court to record reasons, when it accepts the document at a late stage. He has further submitted that when the Court rejects the document then the Court is not required to give reasons. This particular view has also been taken by Hon'ble Milap Chandra, J. in Jagjit Cotton Textiles Mills Ltd's. case (supra ). However, we are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Lodha in view of the submissions made by Mr. A. L. Chopra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who has submitted that recording of satisfaction of the Court for late production of a document is also a matter of exercise of judicial discretion and rejection and acceptance of documents also is a matter of exercise of judicial discretion and judicial discretion has to be exercised by recording a speaking order. Whether it is a case of acceptance of documents or it is a case of rejection of documents, unless the Court records its reasons, the revisional or appellate court will have no opportunity to examine those reasons. IT is true that every judicial order must be based on reasons and it must be a speaking order. May be that the relevant rule does not specifically provides for recording of reasons for rejection of documents but recording of reasons is very much necessary in view of the principles of natural justice. IT was further contended by Mr. Chopra that discretion should be exercised so as to further the cause of justice. All the rules of procedure being meant for the administration of justice and hence too technical a view should not be taken. This very view has been upheld by a decision of the Orissa High Court in Property Association of Baptist Churches Vs. State of Orissa IT was submitted by him that when genuineness of a document is beyond doubt, there can be no reasonable objection to its reception even at a later stage. True that Sub-r. (1) makes the satisfactory explanation for non-production in accordance with R. 1, a condition precedent for the reception of documents produced beyond the time prescribed by O. 13 R. 1 C. P. C. but the sub-rule must be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of justice. The court is entitled to consider not only the reason for non-production but the authenticity of the document and the defying effect of the reception in evidence of the document. In cases, where the document is of undoubted authenticity leave should ordinarily be granted but the discretion of the Court is there and the discretion should be exercised judiciously. We have given our most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and in our considered opinion, the submissions made by Mr. A. L. Chopra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners deserve to be sustained in view of the number of decisions of their lordships of the Supreme Court and this Court. In this respect, we may first refer to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Swaran Lata V. Harendra Kumar (7), wherein it was observed as follows: "trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to achieve according to law and the procedure of the Court, a judicial determination between the contesting parties of the matter in controversy. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge, a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest, it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just. " It was later observed that the conclusion of the Court ought normally to be supported by reasons duly recorded and this requirement transcends all technical rules of procedure. In Radhey Shyam Vs. Lalli (8), it has been held by this Court as under: - "it must be impressed upon the trial courts that due weight should be given, while writing an order to the respective contentions of both the parties and proper reasons should be assigned for the conclusions arrived at by that court so that the appellate or the revisional court may be able to appreciate as to what grounds prevailed with the trial court while passing such an order. As the trial court has to exercise its judicial discretion while proceeding to allow or disallow an application for setting aside exparte decree, the trial court is expected to records its finding clearly as also the reasons upon which such finding is based. If that would have been done, I am sure that the suit would not have remained pending for such a long time. It is only because of the laconic nature of the order passed by the trial court that this revision application was entertained by this Court. " Thus, this authority, clearly prescribes that the trial court must give due weight to the respective contentions of both the parties and it should assign proper reasons for the conclusions arrived by it so that the appellate court or the revisional court may be able to appreciate as to what grounds prevailed with the trial court while passing such an order. ;