S.N. Modi, J. - (1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Bharatpur, dated October 18, 1975, whereby the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit was set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial court with the direction that the agreement dated September 29, 1960 produced by the plaintiffs witness Radhe Lal, be admitted in evidence and the case be decided afresh on merits after giving opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove that document and the defendants to rebut that evidence. The document dated September 29, 1960 is said to have been possessed by witness Radhe Lal. When the latter appeared in the witness -box, be wanted to produce that document. The trial court refused to admit that document on the following grounds, - - (1) that the existence of this document does not find any mention in the list of documents filed along with the plaint under Order 7 rule 14 C.P.C. Its existence was also not disclosed before the first bearing as required under Order 13 rule 1 C.P.C. (2) that Radhe Lal, who produced the document, is wholly unconnected with the document, (3) that the document is neither a public document nor it is obtained from any judicial record, and (3) that the genuineness of the document doubtful. Dealing with the above grounds, the learned Additional District Judge observed as follows, - - "The contention that the genuineness of the document is doubtful and further that it was not produced at proper time nor it was relied upon, is no doubt true, but simply because the document will require proof or that it was not produced at the proper stage, it cannot be rejected if it is otherwise found to be material for deciding the merits of the case on one side or the other." The learned Additional District Judge, acting under clause (a) of sub -rule (1) of rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C., admitted the document and remanded the case for rehearing to the trial court, as already stated above.
(2.) It is in these circumstances, that one of the defendants, namely, Nathi Lal, has preferred this appeal under the provisions of Order 43 rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely examined the record specially the document in dispute.;