KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) is directed against the order dated 5. 3. 1992 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karauli in Civil Suit No. 304/83. The brief facts are as under :
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent No. 1- Ram Bharosi Lal had filed a suit against the petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 and 3- Johari Lal and Kailash respectively for an injunction restraining them from interfering in his possession in the land in dispute on the ground that the land in dispute was his ancestral property. THE suit is being contested by the petitioner as well as by the respondents No. 2 and 3 and necessary issues had been framed and after the parties produced their evidence the case was fixed for arguments, but an application was moved by the petitioner stating that he had learnt only on 4. 1. 1992 that a portion of the land in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 under a sale-deed dated 13. 6. 1955, whereas, the plaintiff was claiming the property to be inherited ancestral property and on learning about it he has applied for certified copy of the sale- deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and praying that the certified copy of the sale-deed be taken on record. THE application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and, vide the impugned order, the learned trial court has dismissed the application. When the matter came-up before this court on 24-4-1992, directions were issued for issuing of notice to show cause why the revision petition should not be admitted/disposed of. Despite service, none has cared to appear on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order besides the copies of the application moved by the petitioner and the copy of the reply filed the respondent which have been produced before me by Shri Goyal and the correctness of which has not been challenged by Shri Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 Since. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 3 I did not have the advantage of hearing anyone on their behalf. In the application in question it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner was not in know of the fact that the property in dispute had been purchased by the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 13. 6. 1955 and he learnt about it only on 4. 1. 1992 and thereafter made an application and obtained the certified copy thereof and that the said certified copy was necessary to be taken on record to contradict the case of the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 that the land in dispute was ancestral in nature. In the reply, the application was opposed, but it was nowhere stated that the applicant-petitioner know about this fact earlier. Rule 17 of the Order 18 of the Code, empowers a court to permit a party to produce the evidence, if it was not previously known to him, at any stage of the suit. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was knowing the fact that a portion of the land in dispute had been purchased by a sale-deed. The learned trial court, therefore, committed an error of jurisdiction by not allowing the petitioner to produce the document in question on record. Consequently, I accept this revision petition, set-aside the impugned order dated 5. 3. 1992 and allow the application moved by the defendant-petitioner in this regard with the observation that the correctness of the certified copy will be put to the plaintiff-respondent No. l and if he admits it there will be no necessity to prove if and the matter will be decided after taking the certified copy as a piece of evidence on record but, if the disputes the correctness of the said certified copy the petitioner will be given an opportunity to prove the same according to law with a right of rebuttal to the plaintiff- respondent No. l. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. . ;