Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1607 (RAJ)

Hakka @ Sukh Lal v. Ram Lal

2009-07-15

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') against the impugned order dated 4.1.02 of Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the revision are that during pendency of a revenue suit before Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh, the petitioner-defendants filed an application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) on 16.11.2000 to Assistant Collector Pratapgarh for inclusion in record a registered sale deed executed on 29.5.1967; whereupon Sub-Divisional Officer vide his impugned order rejected the application; hence the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pleaded that the document sought to be taken on record is a registered sale deed executed on 29.5.1967. Earlier this sale deed was put up in an appeal pertaining to mutation so it could not be presented with initial documents submitted before framing of issues. This sale deed finds mention in the averment of the written statement. Since it is a registered public document there is no question of its being counterfeit document. A document can be accepted by the Court at any stage when it is necessary to resolve the real controversy in a matter before the Court. The learned counsel cited 1995 WLC (2) 195 and 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 48 in support of his contention. It was also pleaded that according to 1991 RLR 186 (D.B. High Court) a revision against the order of rejection passed under Order 13 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. is maintainable. Where document is beyond question it should be accepted by taking a liberal view by the Court, as is held in AIR 1993 (Patna) 35. 5. Countering the contentions of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners argued that the revision against the order passed under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC is not maintainable as held in 2004 RBJ 64. That the document was misplaced as such it could not be produced is not a valid ground for submission of the document under Order 13 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. as held in 2000 RRD 495. He pressed for rejection of the petition. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 4.1.02 and gone through the record. 7. He pressed for rejection of the petition. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 4.1.02 and gone through the record. 7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 4.1.02 of Sub-Divisional Officer reveals that the application filed Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC was rejected mainly on the grounds that the document was not a bona fide document and it was too late to be presented as oral evidence of plaintiff had concluded and defendants had also produced two witnesses. As far as the bona fide presentation of the document is concerned, it is beyond doubt that the document sought to be submitted is a registered sale deed executed on 29.5.1967. Since it is a registered public document, it cannot be said to be a fake or counterfeit document. As far as the bona fides of the petitioners-defendants in presenting of the said document is concerned, this registered document executed on 29.5.1967 finds mention in the averment of the written statement at para 7(ka); thus, bona fides of the petitioners in presenting the document cannot be disputed. As to why this document was not presented before framing of the issues, it is explained by the petitioner-defendants that this sale deed was already put up in an appeal pertaining to a mutation matter before the competent court. This plea for delayed presentation is acceptable. According to 1995 WLC (2) 195 a document can be accepted at any stage by the court when it is instrumental in resolving the real controversy of the matter pending before the Court as is propounded in 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 48. 8. As far as maintainability of a revision against an order of rejection under Order 13 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. is concerned, it is expressly held by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in 1991(1) RLR 186 (DB) 'Bharosi Lal and Ors. vs. Moolchand' that a revision would lie against an order by which subordinate court has refused to accept documentary evidence under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC. The Board of Revenue has also held the similar view in 'Gyarasi Bai and Ors. vs. Rukmani and Ors' as reported in 1993 RRD 213 that a revision against an order refusing to accept documentary evidence is maintainable. 9. The Board of Revenue has also held the similar view in 'Gyarasi Bai and Ors. vs. Rukmani and Ors' as reported in 1993 RRD 213 that a revision against an order refusing to accept documentary evidence is maintainable. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that Assistant Collector Pratapgarh has committed illegality and material irregularity in rejecting the application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the C.P.C.; as such the revision succeeds and the impugned order dated 4.1.02 is set aside. The application filed under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC is accepted at the cost of Rs. 1000/-. Both the parties are directed to appear before Sub-Divisional Officer Pratapgarh on 17.8.09. Pronounced.