ORDER R.S. Shukla The claim of the Appellant for recording K. No. 173 /10 as his khudkasht was dismissed by the trial Court because he failed to produce a certified copy of the Khasra for the year 1948-49, which was the relevant year for the purpose of a claim under Section 38 of the M.P. A.P. R. Act. The appeal before the Commissioner was summarily dismissed because there too the Appellants failed to file a copy of the required Khasra or, in alternative the Khasra for the year 1949-50, to show that he brought the land under cultivation prior to the date of vesting. The orders of the two Courts below have now been challenged in second appeal. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, produced before me a certified copy of the Khasra for the year 1948-49, supported by an affidavit explaining the circumstances which led to the Appellant's failure to produce the same before the lower Courts. Two questions arise for consideration, viz., (i) whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-production of the certified copy of the Khasra for the year 1948-49 or for the year 1949-50, and (ii) whether it would be correct to admit the document at the stage of second appeal and to proceed to decide the case on merits. For question No. (i) we might usefully refer to the observations of the Nagpur High Court in 1942 N.L. J. 396 (Balasaheb Devasthan v. Bajrangdas). In that case it was held that "where the Plaintiff fails to file a certified copy of an entry in the record-of-rights the Court should not dismiss the suit at once. The Plaintiff should be called upon to explain the omission and should be given an opportunity to file it. This view proceeds on the well known principle that the Court should not be astute to defeat a claim on a technical point of procedure without considering the case on merits". This decision was followed in another case (Sakharam v. Pandurang) by the same Court where the Plaintiff had not filed a certain document under a bona fide belief that the same was not relevant. It was held that there was sufficient cause for allowing him to file the document at a later stage". This decision was followed in another case (Sakharam v. Pandurang) by the same Court where the Plaintiff had not filed a certain document under a bona fide belief that the same was not relevant. It was held that there was sufficient cause for allowing him to file the document at a later stage". In yet another case (Mahadu v. Bhawanlal) the same High Court held that "if there is no cause which the Court considers sufficient for non-production of the certified copy of the record-of-rights at the proper stage, the Court is bound to dismiss the suit. The rule enunciated in the above cases would furnish a useful guidance for the revenue Courts. The trial Court, obviously, took a hasty step in dismissing Appellant's claim. The same cannot, however, be said for the order of the learned Commissioner as at the stage of first appeal the Appellant knew that the filing of the Khasra was necessary. If in spite of this knowledge he did not take any steps for filing the document in question, he must bear the responsibility for his negligence. It was, no doubt, open to the learned Commissioner to grant an opportunity to the Appellant, if he had sought it, to file the document and then to consider if the late production thereof could be excused on sufficient grounds. The position now before me, however, is different and this leads me to consider the second question posed above. I have before me a certified copy of the Khasra and an affidavit explaining the cause of delay. This explanation is to the effect that neither the Appellant knew that the production of the Khasra was necessary nor had his counsel advised him to do so. It is stated that it was only recently that the Appellant realised the omission on his part and that is why the document has been filed at the stage of second appeal. Quite obviously the explanation offered is wholly insufficient, particularly, when he knew, or could know, from the order of the trial Court that his claim was rejected chiefly on the ground of non-production of the document in question. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the relevancy of the most important piece of evidence was not known to him before he filed the appeal before the Commissioner. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the relevancy of the most important piece of evidence was not known to him before he filed the appeal before the Commissioner. To throw the blame on his previous legal adviser is a dirty trick, particularly, when the counsel, whosoever he may be, has neither admitted these allegations, nor has he an opportunity to rebut the statement of the Appellant. Although therefore, a case may not, as a rule, be dismissed on the technical grounds of non-production of a certified copy of a public document, the Appellant is not entitled to the benefit of this rule. He has totally failed to explain the non-production of the Khasra or its late production at the stage of second appeal. I would not, therefore, admit the Khasra in evidence at this stage. As there is no other evidence to support his claim the same must stand rejected. The appeal is summarily dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.