MITAL, J. - (1.) THE trial court heard the arguments and by order dated 15. 2. 94 fixed the case for pronouncement of judgment on 21. 2. 94. Before the judgment could be pronounced, an application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the C. P. C. was filed by the plaintiff for bringing on record two documents. That application has been allowed by the trial court by order dated 24. 3. 94 and this is one of the defendants' Revision.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the defendant has argued that after the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment, no proceedings were pending before the trial court. No application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code could be entertained. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Singh Kumar (1), wherein while considering the scope of Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code it was observed that after the case is fixed for pronouncement of judgment, no proceedings are pending and, therefore, no application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code could be entertained. Even under Order 13 Rule 2 it is provided that an application for production of documents may be received at any stage of the proceeding provided other conditions laid down in the rule are in existence. Since the proceedings are over by fixing the case for pronouncement of judgment, provisions under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code will cease to apply and the aggrieved party can only file those documents as additional documents in appeal Counsel for the plaintiff in the alternative urged that the application was under Order 13 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code and in the interest of justice the trial court may be deemed to have exercised inherent jurisdiction and the High Court should not interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. I am not impressed with this argument. When there is specific provision under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code, Section 151 of the Code cannot be resorted to. A similar argument was raised in the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and a reading of paras 18 and 19 of the judgment would show that the argument was rejected. For the reasons given therein, I reject this argument. Accordingly, the Revision is allowed, order of the court below dated 24. 3. 94 is set aside and the trial court is directed to pronounce its judgment as early as possible. During the course of arguments. I was informed that the plaintiff has filed another application seeking permission of the trial Court for production of a supplementary power of attorney, which is co-related with the one of the two documents which have been allowed by the impugned order and in that application arguments have been heard and decision is to be taken by the trial Court. For the reasons given by me above that by fixing the case for pronouncement of judgment, no proceedings are pending, the trial court is prohibited from taking on record the supplementary power of attorney or for deciding the subsequent application. However, I make it clear that it would be open to the plaintiff to seek permission of the appellate court to produce the documents by way of additional documents at the appellate stage. This order will not stand in the way of plaintiff to have those documents produced at the appellate stage, if the appellate court permits. . ;