Usha Wire Netting Factory Ltd. vs Mr. Ram Kishan Yadav
2002 Latest Caselaw 179 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Kapoor, J.

1. Heard the parties' counsel

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a document which was sought to be filed was reply to the notice sent by the respondent in response to notice of termination of tenancy. As such, it is a very material document and the learned Trial Court should have allowed filing of the document and should have granted opportunity to prove it in evidence. It is submitted tat the respondent could also be given an opportunity to lead evidence by proving the document. The respondent could also be compensated by payment of cost.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the revision petition is not maintainable for rejection of an application under Order 13(2) does not relate to the point of jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. It relates to the question of the fact at the same time, a question of law also, in a given case. But, in any case, it does not relate to the question of jurisdiction. The learned Trail Court could entertain the application in the given circumstances and could reject the same as well. Thus, the Trial Court has acted within its jurisdiction. No material irregularity of illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order. In such a situation, this Court should not interfere in revisional jurisdiction, especially after but the partes have led and closed their evidence and the matter is listed for final arguments.

4. Having heard the parties' counsel, it appears desirable to note the observations made by the learned Trial Court in para 6.

In the present case the document which the applicant want to bring on record is of the year 1988 and it is not the case of the applicant that he was not in a possession of this document at the time of filing of the suit or at the time of framing of the issues. No reason has been given as to why this document was not produced in accordance with order 13 Rule 1 CPC. The application simply states that omission took place in failure to file the said document on record is only an act of inadvertence. However, this ground by itself is not a justifiable ground; there has to be a specific reason which could amount to a good casue which unabld the applicant to prodce the documnet earlier. In te present case the applicant hs failed to show a good cause for non-production of this document as per the requirement of Rule 1 Order 13 CPC.l Therefore, the application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC is hereby dismissed.

5. It is apparent from the above that there are appropriate reasons not to accept the application for no satisfactory reasons been gien as to why the documnet couldnot be filed for the document was in custody of the petitioner and it is dated 10t June, 1988. Consequentlu, it does not appear plausible to say that there is any material irregularity or llegality.

6. As regards preliminary objection, learned Counsel for the respondent referred to Radhey Syam v. Nathuram which is based on a judgment of a Full Judgment of Rajasthan High court in Harakchand v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Rah, LW 320, wherein the following observations were made:-

" Whether a particular evidence as admissible accordig to law or not is a question of law which the Tral Court was entitled to decide and if any eror as been committed in deiding that question, it can not be said taht such error was in any way an error in the manner of exercise of jurisdiction."

7. In Radhey Shyam v. Nathuram (Supra), judgment in Pandurang Dhondi Chougle was also referred to and the scope of Section 115 was considered y the Supreme Court in that case in following words:-

"The construction of a decree like the consruction of a dcoumet of title is no doubt a point of law. Even so, it can not beheld to justify the exericse of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Code because it as no relation to the jurisdiction of the Court. Like other matters wich are relevant and aterial in deterining the question of he adjustmnet of debts, the question about the existece of the debt has been left to the determination of the Courts which are authorised to administer the provsions of the Act, and even if in dealing with such qestions, the Trial court or te District Court commits an error of law, it can not be said, that such an error would necessarily involve the question of the said court's jurisdiction within te mearnig of Section 115 of the Code".

8. In Radhey Shyam v. Nathuram(supra), another judgment of Gujarat High Court in Shah Prabhudas Ishwardas v. Shah Bhogilal Nathalal as well as judgment in Smt. Buchibai v. Nagpur University AIR 1946 Nag 377 were also referred to and ultimately a Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court took the view that admissibility of the document and order passed in respect thereto is a matter of procedure.

9. In the light of the judgment in Harakchand v. State of Raasthan 1970 Raj. LW 320 (supra), howsoever gross an erro may be while rejecting an application for admitting a document a revision can not be entertained and the aggrieved party would have to wait for making a grievace against sch a rejectio of application under Order 13 Rule 2 in an appeal, in case a decree was passed agaisnt that prty finally.

10. Learned Counsel for the respondent also referred to a judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Ram Lal Dhirta Ram v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi and DLF Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh. AIR 197 SC 2324, wherein the Supreme Court under Section 115 observed as under:-

"The position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115, it isnot competent to the High court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself."

11. After considering the case law on this principle, a Single Judge of this Court in Ram Lal Dhirta Ram v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, observed at Page 115 in para 7:-

In this case the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to try the dispute. It had the jurisdiction to reject a documnet or impound it as also the jurisdiction to receive it on recording reasons showing as to why its receipt as evidence was justified. The Trial Court took the view that the documnet concered could have been easily procured for purposes of litigation and that its genuineness was not beyond suspicion.

12. After making these observations, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that the impugned order did not call for any interference under Section 115 CPC and dismissed the petition.

13. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court has held in Madanlal v. Shyamlal in Para 5 as under:-

The cause shown by the appellant was not considered to be a "good cause" as provided under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC. It istrue that power under Order 13, Rule 2, CPC could be exercised liberaly and taht "good cause" requires lesser degree of proof than that of "sufficient cause". [Re: Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others] May be that order iserroneous, however, it can not be said that such order passed by the Trial Court could be intefered under Section 115 of CPC. It can not be said that the Trial Court has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the applications filed by te appellant and taht the order, if allowd, would occasion a failure of justice. the words "material irregularity in exericse of jurisdiction" do not cover either errors of fact or law. [Re: Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria and others (1953) SCR 136]. It is open to the appellant to raise this contention at the appellate stage, if decree is passed against him.

14. For the fore-going reasons, neither it appears that there is any material illegalityor irregularity in hte order, nor it would be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

15. The amount deposited by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court in terms of the earlier order of this Court dated 13th July, 2001 shall be refunded to the petitioner.

16. However, when the matter comes up before the Appellate Trial Court, the Appellate Trial Court is at liberty to consider the request of filing the document and any observation made hereinafter shall not come up in its way in exerice of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the Appellate Trial Court.

17. The petition is dismissed accordingly.