AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Milap Chandra, J.—The revision petition No. 26/-89 has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge Sri Ganganagardt. 19-11-88 by which he did not receive supplementary bill filed by the petitioner. The revision petitions Nos. 35, 36 and 37/ 89 have been filed against similar orders of the Civil Judge, Merta dt. 17-12-88 by which documents filed by the petitioners in their cases were not received. All these four revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order as a common question is involved in them,
In all the four revision petitions, the learned counsel for the non petitioners have raised a preliminary objection that no revision petition lies u/s 115, C.P.C. against an order passed under Order 13 Rule 2. C.P.C, In support of their contention, they relied upon the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another, Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, ; Shri M.L. Sethi Vs. Shri R.P. Kapur, : Manick Chandra Nandy Vs. Debdas Nandy and Others, , Pandurang Dhoni Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav, and also on the decision of this court given in Radhey Shyam Vs. Nathuram, .
In reply to the preliminary objection, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that revision u/s 115, C.P.C. is perfectly maintainable against an order passed under Order 13 Rule 2, C.P.C., if it is passed by the Court with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. They further contended that revision petitions are being entertained and allowed against such orders. They placed reliance upon Ramjilal v. Durga-lal (1988) 2 Raj LR 464 Nand Kishore v. S. Budharam, 1986 Rajasthan LR 537 Nanu Ram and Others Vs. Vardichand and Another, Jagannath v. Jodha Ram, 1980 Raj LW 42 : Municipal Council, Bharatpur Vs. Gokul Chand and Another, Ramnath Nandlal Dhoot and Co. and Another Vs. B.R. Shroti and Others, ; Bhikari Charan v. Basanti. AIR 1985 Orissa 49, Ganesh Ram v. Paras Finance Co., 1984 Rajasthan LR 877, Yaqoob Ali Vs. Firm Haji Taj Khanji Ibrahimji, Udaipur, ; Karnataka Agro Corporation v. A. Narain Nayak (1989) 1 CCC 464 (Kant) Khan-chand H. Chatlani v. Suresh Ramchand Chugani. (1988) 2 CCC 977 : (AIR 1989 NOC 129) (Kant) and order dt. Nov. I. 1988 passed in Civil Revn. No. 72 84 Banshilal v. Smt. Chhangani Devi.
Order 13. Rule 2(1). C.P.C. runs as under;- -
Effect of non-production of documents.-- (1) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof; and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing.
It plainly says that no documentary evidence shall be received after the settlement of issues unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for its non-production and reasons shall be recorded for receiving it. Under the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the Court has jurisdiction to hold rightly or wrongly that good cause to its satisfaction has been or has not been shown for the late production of a document. Such a decision has no relation to the question of jurisdiction of the Court. If the Court has failed to record any reason for receiving any amount at a later stage, it may be said that it has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The above quoted provisions specifically require the recording of reasons by the Court while accepting a document. However, no reason is required to be recorded for not accepting a document at a later stage. In such a case, there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. In all these four cases, the trial Courts have given reasons in their orders for not receiving the documents. None of the documents is going to affect the ultimate decision of the case in which it has been filed. The mere fact that decision is erroneous in fact or in law does not amount to illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. It is well settled law that the expression "illegal" is to be taken to mean "in breach of some provisions of law" and the expression "with material irregularity" to mean "by committing some error of procedure in the course of trial which is material in that it may have effected the ultimate decision".
It has been held in Shri M.L. Sethi Vs. Shri R.P. Kapur, that an erroneous order on a question of law which has no relation to question of jurisdiction of that Court cannot be corrected u/s 115, C.P.C. It has been held in Pandurang Dhoni Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav, that High Court cannot u/s 115, C.P.C. correct errors of facts or law, howsoever gross they may be and it can do so only when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court.
It has been observed in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bhutnath Banerjee and Others, as under:--
"(15) We are therefore of opinion that the High Court fell in error in interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the Subordinate Judge with respect to the appellants having sufficient cause for not making an application for bringing the respondents on record within time and for not applying for the setting aside of the abatements within time."
It has been observed in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another, Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, as under :
"5. In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate Court may be right or wrong may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law, but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not invoke its jurisdiction u/s 115 of the C.P.C. See the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dhoni Chougule Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav, D.L.F., Housing and Construction Company (P.) Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Sarup Singh and Others, ."
Great reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on Municipal Council, Bharatpur Vs. Gokul Chand and Another, It is correct that Radhey Shyam Vs. Nathuram, , has been referred to in it. But nothing has been said about it.
In Gram Panchayat, Keharpura v. State of Rajasthan 1986 Raj LR 563 (sic); Jagannath v. Jodha Ram 1980 Raj LW 42 ; Nanu Ram and Others Vs. Vardichand and Another, Ramjilal v. Durgalal (1988) 2 Raj LR 464; Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. A. Narayana Nayak (1989) 1 CCC 464. (Kant) and Khandhand H. Chatlani by L. Rs. v. Suresh Ramchand Chugani (1988) 2 CCC 977 : (AIR 1989 NOC 129) (Kant), no question u/s 115, C.P.C. was involved. In Ramnath Nandlal Dhoot and Co. and Another Vs. B.R. Shroti and Others, , order was passed under Order 13, Rule 2, C.P.C. by the Court on the Original Side. In Ganesh Ram v. Paras Finance Co. 1984 Raj LR 877 , it has been held that against an error of law if it affects ultimate decision of the case, revision lies. In Yaqoob Ali Vs. Firm Haji Taj Khanji Ibrahimji, Udaipur, it has not been held that revision lies even if no question regarding the exercise of jurisdiction is involved. In Civil Revn. No. 72 / 84, Banshi-lal v. Smt. Chhangani Devi, the document in question itself came into existence after the framing of issues and was filed before commencement of the evidence of the parties. Under these facts and circumstances, this Court held that the trial Court exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity in refusing to accept it on the ground of delay.
Thus there is a great force in the preliminary objection. Revision Petitions are not maintainable u/s 115, C.P.C.
Consequently, all the four revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Let the original order be kept in the file of S.B.C.R. No. 26/89 and a copy be placed in each file of other civil revisions.