MADANLALversusSHYAMLAL

A                                    MADANLAL
                                            v.
                                      SHYAMLAL

                                 NOVEMBER 9, 2001

B                         [M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

          Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

          S. ll 5, Order 13, Rule 2-Production of Documentary evidence-Suit for
    specific peiformance-Defendant after evidence of plaintiff was closed, filing
c   application under Order 13, Rule 2 for production of certain documents-Trial
    court rejecting the application observing that defendant neither submitted his
    own affidavit nor made out a good cause for late production of documents-
    Revision/Petition ofdefendant dismissed by High Court-Held, there cannot be
    any serious objection to production ofsuch documents which cannot be doubted-
D   At the most plaintiffshould be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal
    but that could be done by the court at appropriate stage-However, in the
    instant case, the cause shown by defendant was not considered to be a "good
    cause" as provided under Order 13 Rule 2-lt is true that power under Order
    13, Rule 2 could be exercised liberally and that "good cause" requires lesser
E   degree of proof than that of "sufficient causes"-May be that order is errone-
    ous, however, it cannot be said that such order passed by trial court could be
    inteifered with under s.l15-lt cannot be said that trial court has acted with
    material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the applications
    filed by defendant and that the order, if allowed, would occasion a failure of
    justice-The words "material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction" do not
F    cover either errors of fact or law-Revision.

         Arjun Singh v. Mahindra Kumar and Ors., AIR (1964) SC 993 and
    Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria and Ors., [1953] SCR 136,


G
    referred to.

           Woni> and Phrases :
                                                                                          -
          Words "Good cause" and "sufficient cause"-Connotation of Words
    "mterial irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction"-Connotation of.

H          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7810 of 2001.
                                           252
                         MADANLAL v. SHYAMLAL                              253
      From the Judgment and Order dated 27 .2.2001 of the Rajasthan High           A
Court in S.B.C.R. No. 216 of 2001.

      B.D. Sharma for the Appellant.

      Ms. Shobha for Mis. K.L. Mehta & Co. for the Respondent.
                                                                                   B
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Leave granted.

      This appeal is filed against the the judgment and order dated 27.2.2001
passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Revision No.
216 of 2001.
                                                                                   c
       The facts of the case are that-respondent filed a civil suit for specific
perfonnance of agreement to sell, dated 1.8.1992, of agricultural land and
residential plot for a consideration of Rs. 1.50.000. Appellant submitted
written statement on 18.1.1996 and denied that he was executed any such            D
agreement to sell in favour of the respondent and that respondent has misused
his signatures taken on the blank stamp paper. After the evidence of witnesses
of the respondent was recorded, appellant filed application under order 13 rule
2 of CPC for production of copy of the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer regarding the acquisition of one bigha of agricultural land in dispute,
electricity bill of his house and copy of the registered sale deed executed by     E
the petitioner on 9.2.1987 in favour of one Nathu Ram pertaining to 900 sq.
yds. of land which is also part of the suit property. Those applications filed
by the appellant were rejected by the trial court vide its judgment and order
dated 11.1.2001 on the ground that plaintiff has closed his evidence and that
defendant has neither submitted his own affidavit nor has made out a good          F
cause for late 'production of the said documents. That order was challenged
before the High Court of Rajasthan by filing Revision Petition, which was
rejcted by impugned judgment and order dated 27.2.2001 by holding that
there was no reference of the said documents in the written statement and no
good cause was shown for its non production at the relevant time. The High
                                                                                   G
Court also arrived at the conclusion that the trial court has nor committed any
irregularity or error relating to jurisdiction in refusing to take the documents
on record. Hence, revision was dismissed.

     Appellant sought to produce certified copy of the order passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer, registered sale deed and electricity bills. For the      H
    254                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A   genuineness of these documents, there may not be any doubt. Only question
    is - as the documents were not produced at the relevant time before the
    settlement of the issues, whether he should be permitted to produce the same
    before his evidence is recorded. It is true that there cannot be any serious
    objection to production of such documents, which cannot be doubted. At the
    most, question would be - in rebuttal plaintiff should be given some oppor-
B
    tunity to lead the evidence but that can be done by the Court at appropriate
    stage. It is the say of the appellant that the documents were given to one
    Palaram. a Law Graduate and his trusted person, for producing it before the
    Court but he has lost them and thereafter he has filed the applications after
    obtaining the certified copies. However, the learned counsel for the respond-
c   ent has objected to the production of the said documents by raising various
    contentions, which are not required to be dealt with in this appeal.

           The cause shown by the appellant was not considered to be a "good
    cause" as provided under order 13 rule 2 CPC. It is true that power under order
    13 rule 2 CPC could be exercised liberally and that "good cause" requires
D   lesser degree of proof than that of "sufficient cause''. (Re. Arjun Singh v.
    Mahindra Kumar and Ors.. AIR (1964) SC 993). May be that order is
    erroneous, however, it cannot be said that such order passed by the trial court
    could be interfered under Section 115 of CPC. It cannot be said that the trial
    court has acted with material irregulatiry in exercise of its jurisdiction in
E   rejecting the applications filed by the appellant and that the order. If allowed,
    would occasion a failure of justice. The words "material irregularity in
    exercise of jurisdiction" do not cover either errors of fact or law. (Re.
    Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria and Ors., [1953] SCR 136).
    It is open to the appellant to raise this contention at the appellate stage, if
    decree is passed against him.
F
           Hence, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

    R.P.                                                         Appeal dismissed.