YAMIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner dated 23. 7. 1993 by which three applications of the petitioner were dismissed presumably under Order 1. 3 Rule 2 CPC. By order dated 16. 11. 1993 Hon'ble Milap Chandra, J. allowed the revision on a cost of Rs. 200/-but since the order was passed without hearing the respondents, the order was recalled on 27. 5. 1998. then the revision petition was dismissed and after its restoration it was put up for hearing.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that there was only one application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC while the two other applications were Tiled to call for the record. These two applications are respectively dated 5. 1. 1990 and 18. 11. 1992. The third application dated 18. 11. 1989 was under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC alongwith which certain documents were submitted Learned counsel for the respondents first submitted that the revision was not maintainable. But this court in Chouth Mal vs. Fazal Hussain (1) and Bharosilal and another vs. Moolchand (2), held that a revision was maintainable. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by earlier order dated 16. 11. 1993 the applications were allowed on a cost of Rs. 200/ -. He submitted that the trial court itself took a long time in deciding the applications, say more than three years in deciding first two applications. It had no justification to dismiss them on the ground of delay. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application did not disclose how and when documents were discovered and, therefore, in view of Nand Kishore vs. Budhram (3), and Mool Chand Sharma vs. Hari Shanker Sharma (4), the order of the trial court should be upheld. He also cited Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others (5), and submitted that the trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error and, therefore, the revision should be dismissed. So far as Nand Kishore vs. Budhram's and Mool Chand Sharma vs. Hari Shanker Sharnia's cases (supra) are concerned, ft is clear from the judgments that the documents were submitted at the fag end of the trial and no good cause was shown for non-production of document at earlier stage, therefore, no interference was made in the order of the trial court. In the case, in hand ft is not so and the case is not at the final stage. The evidence of the defendant is still to start, therefore, these rulings are different on facts of the present case. The application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC dated 8. 11. 1989 has been dismissed only, on the ground that no good cause has been shown. The petitioner obtained certified copies of the documents which he enclosed with application dated 8. 11. 1989 and the documents are not such which may be forged or fabricated. When the court itself took a very long time in deciding the application, there was no justification in dismissing the application on the ground of delay.
(3.) SO far as other two applications are concerned, they relate to summoning of some file. In muffassif courts some times wrong provision of law is mentioned in applications by which the courts are not to be misguided and have to see the correct provisions. Where a party satisfied the court that after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was reading his evidence, the court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. (See Order XVIII Rule 17-A CPC ). As found from the record the learned trial Judge took long time himself in deciding the applications as such they could not be rejected on the ground that they were filed late. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed on a cost of Rs. 500/-tobe paid to the respondents. The plaintiff non-petitioner will be. given an opportunity to produce oral and documentary evidence in rebuttal. .;