Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 357 (RAJ)

Vedant Exports v. Bank of Baroda

2003-03-05

HARBANS LAL

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition under section 115 Civil Procedure Code has been preferred by the defendants against the order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 89/01 whereby the documents filed by the non-petitioner plaintiff have been taken on record on payment of costs of Rs. 500/- with liberty to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the non-petitioner with regard to these documents. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the non-petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the sum of Rs. 4,75,663.64 against the petitioners which was contested by the petitioner defendants. The non-petitioner-plaintiff filed an application on 17.9.2002 along with a foreign bank letter dated 10.12.1996, bill of exchange dated 1.6.1995, bill of Lading dated 28.4.1995, invoice dated 28.4.1995 and Packing list dated 28.4.1995 with the request for taking these documents on record. The petitioners-defendants did not file any written reply to the said application. The learned court below after hearing the parties allowed the said application vide impugned order dated 25.11.2002. Hence, this revision. 3. Notice of this petition was issued to the non-petitioner plaintiff. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission of this petition and have also perused the impugned order. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that the learned court below has committed serious error of jurisdiction in taking the documents on record at belated stage when the evidence of the parties was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments. He has also submitted that after the amendment under Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code w.e.f. 1.7.2002, the non-petitioner plaintiff was not produced along with the plaint. He has also submitted that there is no mention of the documents in para 8 of the plaint and the learned court below has committed error in reading para 8 of the plaint. The non-petitioner plaintiff has not assigned any reason or good cause for not producing these documents along with the plaint before or at the time of framing of the issues. The genuineness of these documents has also been challenged. The non-petitioner plaintiff has not assigned any reason or good cause for not producing these documents along with the plaint before or at the time of framing of the issues. The genuineness of these documents has also been challenged. According to him, this tantamounts of filling of lacunae in the evidence of the non-petitioner-plaintiff which is not permissible as it causes serious prejudice to the rights of the defence. 6. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner plaintiff has drawn my attention of Order 7 Rule 14(3) Civil Procedure Code which has been substituted by the Civil Procedure Code amendment Act, 2002 and has argued that the Legislature has made it more easier for the court to take the documents on record under Sub-rule (3) of the Rule 14 of the Order 7, no good cause is required to be shown and only the leave of the court is required for taking the documents on record. Learned court below having taken the documents on record has not, therefore, committed any illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction and no interference in the order can be made by this court in its revisional jurisdiction. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the impugned order. 8. It may be stated at the outset that after the amendment in the Civil Procedure Code by Act No. 46 of 1999, revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has been materially restricted. Even if the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, it cannot be interfered with under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code unless it is shown and found that if the order impugned would have been made in favour of the party applying for revision, it would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, otherwise not. As such no revision is maintainable against any interlocutory order, if it does not have the effect of finally disposing of the suit and other proceedings as has been held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Phool Singh v. Mavla @ Bhavaliya & Ors., AIR 2002 Madhya Pradesh 246 and the Karnataka High Court in the case of K.R. Subbaraju v. Yasavi Trading Co. & Ors. AIR 2002 Karnataka 407 and this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1474/2002 - Hari Prasad v. Ram Dayal and Anr. decided on 13.2.2003. 9. & Ors. AIR 2002 Karnataka 407 and this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1474/2002 - Hari Prasad v. Ram Dayal and Anr. decided on 13.2.2003. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show as to how the impugned order if it had been passed in favour of the petitioner would finally disposed of the suit. In this view of the matter, therefore, this revision petition being not maintainable and devoid of merit and substance deserves to be dismissed. 10. With these observations, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******