Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 177 (HP)

Balwant Kumar v. Kailash Behl

2002-06-27

KAMLESH SHARMA

body2002
Judgement ORDER :- Petitioners are the plaintiffs, whereas respondents are the defendants and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5-3-2002, passed by the Sub-Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, whereby their application under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC for production of two documents was dismissed. They intend to produce documents, (i) copy of mutation No. 180 dated 16-12-1978 and (ii) application form filed for getting the copy of order on which the said mutation was based, which was returned on the ground that the order applied for stood destroyed. 2. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. The reasons given by the Sub Judge for dismissing the application are mainly that the documents intended to be produced were neither filed nor relied upon at the time of presentation of the plaint as envisaged under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC and also that no good cause has been shown for producing these documents at this late stage of the trial of the suit, as required under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. The trial of the suit is at the stage of rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs. 4. To assail these findings, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has vehemently urged that as stated in the application these documents are intended to be produced in rebuttal, as such, these could neither be filed nor relied upon at the time of filing the plaint and the bar as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 18, Order 7 CPC is not attracted as envisaged under sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order 7 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has also submitted that since the copy of mutation is a public document, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants if it is permitted to be produced even at this late stage. It is further submitted that in the similar facts and circumstances on record, the trial Court vide order dated 19-10-2001 had permitted the defendants to produce on record the copy of jamabandi and the order dated 5-8-1987 of the Estate Officer on the ground that these are public documents and the provisions of Order 13, Rule 2 CPC are to be construed liberally. 5. 5. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267, the learned counsel has lastly submitted that the rules of procedure are handmaid to the administration of justice and instead of going into the technicalities, the trial court was required to permit the plaintiffs to produce these documents on record to afford reasonable opportunity to them to rebut the case of the defendants on adverse possession. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants has supported the impugned order and has pointed out that embargo as provided under Order 13, Rules 1 and 2 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of Order 7 CPC is only applicable to the plaintiffs and not to the defendants, therefore, the order dated 19-10-2001 was rightly passed in favour of the defendants and the plaintiffs cannot take benefit of it to urge that they should also be permitted to produce the evidence at this late stage of the trial of the stage without any sufficient reason. 7. After giving its best consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since the plaintiffs intend to produce the copy of mutation No. 180 dated 16-12-1978 in rebuttal, Order 7, Rule 14 and Order 13, Rules 1 and 2 CPC should not come in their way in view of Rule 18(2) of Order 7 CPC. If after producing and proving the copy of mutation on record, the Court finds that it could not be produced in rebuttal, it is at liberty to reject that document on that ground, but the Court cannot refuse permission to produce and prove it on record. The trial Court is also not right in observing that since it was not given in the list of witnesses and relied upon at the time of filing the plaint as envisaged under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, it cannot be permitted to be produced at a later stage for the same reason that the plaintiffs intend to produce it to rebut the stand of adverse possession taken by the defendants and it is permissible as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order 7 C.P.C. 8. Therefore, this revision is allowed and the order dated 5-3-2002 of the Sub-Judge (2), Mandi, is set aside and the application of the plaintiffs is allowed to the extent that they are permitted to place the copy of mutation No. 180 dated 16-12-1978 on record. The parties are directed to appear before sub-Judge (2), Mandi, District Mandi, on 12-8-2002. Records be sent back immediately. CMP No. 88 of 2002 In view of the disposal of the Civil revision, this application also stands disposed of and the interim order dated 22-3-2002 is vacated. Order accordingly.