Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya and Others vs Jind Improvement Trust

Amar Dutt, J.—This revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 4.6.1999 passed by the Additional Civill Judge (Sr. Division), Jind.

In a suit which was filed by the Jind Improvement Trust, Jind, before the parties had led their evidence, an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff for permission to produce copies of the following documents:

"i) Copy of akash-sizra of land in question.

ii) Certified copies of orders dated 12.1.1998 passed in CWP Nos. 3833, 3834, 2562, 2082, 1011, 837, 838 and order dated 23.11.1989 in CWP No.6890 and order dated 8.12.1993 in CWP No.3577 and order dated 30.5.1996 in LPSA Nos.514 to 517 and order dated 9.9.1996 in LPA No.197."

The application was contested taking into consideration the documents placed before it the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) allowed the application because it was of the view that the documents to be tendered being certified copies of judgments were public documents and should be allowed even at a belated stage.

This order was assailed by the petitioners on the ground that a perusal of the application indicates that the same was silent about the reasons why the documents could not be produced in the first instance and the assertion "that could not be produced due to inadvertent mistake" was not sufficient to allow the application as provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17-A C.P.C. require a finding that the applicant could not have produced the same in the first instance after exercise of due diligence.

On going through the documents it is clear that certified copies sought to be produced by the respondent had been obtained on 19.2.1988 and 24.1.1990 i.e. well before the date on which even the suit was filed. No reason is forthcoming on the record to j show why these documents, could not be produced at the time when the plaintiff was leading his evidence. In these circumstances, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the documents which were sought to be produced in evidence were within the knowledge of the plaintiff who failed to exercise due diligence to produce the same in the first instance i.e. when his evidence was being led. In such a situation, the respondent would not be entitled to the benefit of Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. and the trial Court in my opinion acted beyond its jurisdiction in allowing the application. See Khuda Bux Vs. Nafis Ahmad, and Narain Dass v. IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad and Anr., 1999(1) JR 770.

This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside, However, since all the documents sought to be produced except the copy of the akashsizra are certified copies of the orders passed by this Court in various litigations, it would be open for the respondent, if so advised, to refer to them at the time of arguments.