Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • S.K.Saraf
  • R.K.Verma
  • N.K.Agrawal
  • Kailash Roy
  • Bijon Behari Roy
Judges
  • B.P Jha, J.
Acts
  • Sub-section (2) of S. 115 of the Code
  • Section 115(1) of the Code.
  • Section 115 of the Code
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • S.K.Saraf
  • R.K.Verma
  • N.K.Agrawal
  • Kailash Roy
  • Bijon Behari Roy
Judges
  • B.P Jha, J.
Acts
  • Sub-section (2) of S. 115 of the Code
  • Section 115(1) of the Code.
  • Section 115 of the Code
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Opinion Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 24th March 1979. By the impugned order the court below refused to admit certain private documents filed on 21st March 1979 while admitting certain public documents filed on the same date. The question of admissibility engaged Orders 13, Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (the Code).

The materials show that the documents filed on 21st March 1979 had been in the custody of the Additional Collector, Nalanda, in Mutation Appeal No. 53 of 1974–1975 and that the Additional Collector ordered these documents to be returned by an order dated 8th March 1979. The petitioner alleged that the documents were returned to his advocate on 8th March 1979 and that the advocate handed them to the petitioner on 20th March 1979. The court below accepted that good cause for non-production had been shown up to 8th March 1979 but found that no good cause had been shown for the period between 8th March 1979 and 20th March 1979; on that basis the court below refused to receive the private documents filed on 21st March 1979 while admitting public documents filed the same day.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the court below erred in refusing to admit the private documents filed on 21st March 1979 when the petitioner had shown that those documents were in official custody and had been returned by order dated 8th March 1979 (thus showing good cause up to that date) under O.13, R.1 and R.2 of the Code.
  2. Whether a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code is maintainable against the impugned order in the circumstances of this case, having regard to the Explanation to Section 115 and the provisos to sub‑section (1) and sub‑section (2) of Section 115.
  3. Whether admitting public documents but refusing private documents filed together on the same date amounted to a jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The documents filed on 21st March 1979 were not in the petitioner's possession because they were in the custody of the Additional Collector and were returned by order dated 8th March 1979; this shows good cause under O.13, R.2 for late production.
  • The petitioner asserted that the advocate received the documents on 8th March 1979 and handed them to the petitioner on 20th March 1979 (an explanation for the period 8–20 March 1979 which the court below did not accept).
  • If the private documents are not taken on record, the petitioner will be unable to prove his case; several of the private documents are registered documents and without them the petitioner's entire case may fail—this would occasion failure of justice or irreparable injury.
  • Filing documents under O.13, R.1 and R.2 is a right of a party in a suit; denial of that right amounts to a decision in a case within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code and attracts revision jurisdiction.

Opposite Party's Arguments

  • The civil revision petition is not maintainable because, by the impugned order, no case was decided by the court below (i.e., the order did not determine rights and obligations).
  • The revision petition is barred under provisos (a) and (b) of Section 115 of the Code.
  • Civil revision is maintainable only where no appeal is provided; implication being that an appeal avenue exists in the present matter.
  • The impugned order, if anything, related only to an error in procedure and not to a final determination attracting revision jurisdiction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 406 Definition of when "a case may be said to be decided": an order that adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. The court relied on this Supreme Court decision to conclude that an order which determines rights and obligations (including orders on admissibility that effectively deny a party the ability to prove its case) falls within the scope of Section 115 revision jurisdiction.
Ramgulam Choudhary v. Nawin Choudhary, AIR 1972 Pat 499 Used by opposite counsel to argue non‑maintainability of revision; decision predates the 1976 amendment to the Code. The court held that this decision (and the other similar Patna decision) were of limited relevance because they were rendered before the 1976 amendment and before the Explanation to Section 115(2) existed; therefore they do not apply to the present facts.
Parsuram Dubey v. Mahanth Laxman Das & Others, AIR 1974 Pat 278 Used by opposite counsel to contest maintainability of revision; predates the 1976 amendment. The court treated this authority as inapplicable post‑amendment because the statutory Explanation widening the meaning of "case decided" was not part of the law when that decision was rendered.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by (i) identifying the relevant procedural provisions (O.13 R.1 and R.2 of the Code), (ii) examining the factual record about custody and return of the documents, and (iii) applying the statutory framework of Section 115 of the Code (including the Explanation to sub‑section (2) and provisos to sub‑section (1)) together with the cited precedent of the Supreme Court.

Key analytical steps taken by the court:

  1. Interpretation of O.13, R.1 and R.2: Rule 1 requires a party to produce documentary evidence at or before settlement of issues; Rule 2 allows reception of documents at a later stage if they were not in the party's possession and good cause for non‑production is shown, with the court recording reasons.
  2. Factual application: The court accepted (for the period up to 8th March 1979) that good cause had been shown because the documents were in the custody of the Additional Collector and were returned by an order dated 8th March 1979. The court below nonetheless refused the private documents filed on 21st March 1979 on the ground that the petitioner had not explained delay between 8th and 20th March 1979; the revising court found that it was not necessary under O.13, R.2 to explain delay for every day and that showing good cause up to 8th March 1979 was sufficient to justify reception of the documents filed on 21st March 1979.
  3. Differential treatment of documents: The court observed that the lower court admitted public documents filed on 21st March 1979 (albeit on concession by the opposite counsel) but refused private documents filed the same day. Under O.13, R.2, admission at a subsequent stage must be predicated on good cause shown to the court, not merely on counsel's concession. Because the public documents were admitted on the ground that good cause was shown, the court reasoned that the private documents filed with them ought also to have been admitted on the same basis; refusing them constituted a jurisdictional error or material irregularity.
  4. Maintainability under Section 115: The court relied on the Explanation to Section 115(2) and the Supreme Court's decision in Baldevdas Shivlal to hold that an order which determines rights and obligations (including an order that denies a party the ability to produce documents necessary to prove its case) amounts to a "case decided" and is open to revision. The court analyzed Section 115(1) and (2) to conclude that civil revision lies where no appeal lies against the impugned order; conversely, if an appeal lies against the specific impugned order, revision will not be maintainable. The court held that the present impugned order was one against which no appeal lay and therefore revision was maintainable.
  5. Proviso (b) to Section 115(1): The court found that refusing to admit the private documents would cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to the petitioner (because he might be unable to prove his case), thus attracting proviso (b) and supporting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

On these bases the revising court concluded that the court below acted illegally or with material irregularity in refusing to receive the private documents filed on 21st March 1979.

Holding and Implications

PETITION ALLOWED; PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SET ASIDE

Holding (direct ruling):

  • The revising court set aside that portion of the order dated 24th March 1979 by which the private documents filed by the petitioner on 21st March 1979 were refused admission into evidence.
  • The opposite party is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of the documents filed in the court below.
  • The parties shall bear their own costs. The records of the court below are to be sent down immediately.

Implications (consequences for the parties and legal significance):

  • Direct effect on the parties: The petitioner obtains the relief of having the private documents accepted on the record for reception into evidence; the opposite party retains the right to rebut their evidential effect.
  • Procedural and jurisdictional point: The court affirmed that refusal to admit documents in circumstances where good cause (up to a relevant date) has been shown can amount to jurisdictional error; such an order may be revised under Section 115 where no appeal lies and where the order determines rights and obligations in controversy.
  • Broader precedent: The opinion applies the Explanation to Section 115(2) and relies on Baldevdas Shivlal (AIR 1970 SC 406). The judgment did not purport to announce a novel principle beyond its application of the statutory provision and cited authorities; its immediate effect is the setting aside of the specific portion of the impugned order and the restoration of the petitioner's right to have the private documents received and later tested on their merits.

Result stated in the opinion: "Petition allowed." (portion refusing private documents set aside; parties to bear their own costs; records to be returned to the court below).

Show full summary ...

    Mahanth Som Prakash Das v. Sri Udasin Panchayati Akhara Bara And Others Opposite Parties.

    1. This civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 24th Mar., 1979.

    2. By the impugned order, the court below refused to entertain certain documents on the record and admitted certain documents on the record. In this connection the provisions of Rr. 1 and 2 of O. 13 of the Civil P.C (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) are relevant Under O. 13, R. 1 of the Code, a party is entitled to produce all the documentary evidence on which he intends to rely at or before the settlement of issues. O. 13, R. 2 of the Code applies to a case where the documents are not possession of the party concerned. If a document is not in possession of a party concerned, such a document can 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. O. 13, R. 2 further provides that the court shall record the reasons for so doing.

    3. In the present case, it is clear from paras 6, 7 and 8 of the revision petition that the documents, which were filed in the civil court on 21st Mar., 1979, were in the custody of the Additional Collector, Nalanda, in Mutation Appeal No. 53 of 1974-1975. The Additional Collector ordered that these documents should be returned by an order dated 8th Mar. 1979. It is, therefore, clear that good cause was shown by the petitioner. The court did not hold that no good cause was shown for the period up to 8th Mar., 1979. The court was of opinion that no good cause was shown for the period between 8th Mar., 1979 and 20th Mar., 1979. The allegation of the petitioner was that the documents were returned to Shri Nagina Prasad, Advocate, on 8th Mar., 1979, and he handed over those documents to the petitioner on 20th Mar., 1979. This part of the case of the petitioner has not been accepted by the court below.

    4. If the court means to say that the documents should have been filed on 8th Mar., 1979, then the petitioner has shown good cause for not filing the documents in the civil court. It is not required in a case under O. 13, R. 2 of the Code to explain the delay in respect of every day. It is enough for the petitioner if he has explained the delay up to 8th Mar., 1979. In my opinion, when the court accepted that good cause has been shown up to 8th Mar., 1979 the court was within its jurisdiction to receive the documents as good cause had been shown up to 8th Mar., 1979. Hence, in my opinion, the court below acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in not accepting the document on 21st Mar., 1979.

    5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party contends that this civil revision petition is not maintainable on these grounds:

    (i) That by the impugned order, no case has been decided by the court below.

    (ii) That the revision petition is barred under the provisos (a) and (b) of Section 115 of the Code.

    (iii) That civil revision petition is maintainable where no appeal is provided.

    (iv) That, if at all, the impugned order which has been passed relates to an error in procedure.

    6. So far as the first point is concerned, it is necessary to refer to Explanation to Section 115 of the Code which runs as follows:

    “Explanation.— In this section, the expression ‘any case which has been decided’ includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.”

    On a perusal of this explanation, it is clear that a civil revision petition will be maintainable against any order which determines rights and obligations of the parties in controversy.

    7. In my opinion, any order means any order which determines the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy. In this connection, a reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., (AIR 1970 SC 406). In para No. 10 of the judgment, their Lordships have held that “a case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy”. In my opinion, this decision is quite applicable even after the amendment of 1976. Applying this principle, I hold that a party has a right to file the documents on which he relies at or before the settlement of issues. If a document is not filed under O. 13, R. 1 of the Code, such a document can be filed at a subsequent stage provided the document is not in possession or power of any party.

    8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was not in possession of the documents which were filed on 21st March, 1979. Those documents were in possession of the Additional Collector which were returned to the lawyer of the petitioner on 8th March, 1979. Therefore, according to the finding, the court below rejected these documents simply because the party had not explained the delay in filing the documents between 8th March, 1979 and 20th March, 1979. If good cause has been shown up to 8th March, 1979, then there is no cogent reason as to why the private documents filed by the petitioner should not have been entertained by the court below. No doubt the opposite party can challenge the relevancy of the documents while admitting them into evidence; but this is not the stage for refusing to entertain them. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that if these private documents are not taken into consideration, the whole case of the petitioner will vanish. The private documents include many registered documents also.

    9. It is clear from the impugned order that the court below admitted the public documents which were filed on 21st March, 1979. Those public documents were also in the custody of the Additional Collector. No doubt, those public documents have been admitted into evidence on the concession of the learned counsel for the opposite party. But, under O. 13, R. 2 of the Code, no document can be admitted at a subsequent stage on the basis of the concession given by the lawyers of the parties. Any document can be admitted under O. 13, R. 2 of the Code if good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court. I, therefore, hold that the court admitted the public documents as good cause was shown under O. 13, R. 2 of the Code. If once a court admits the public documents at a subsequent stage, the court must admit other private documents which were filed along with the public documents on the same ground which has not been done in the present case. I, therefore, hold that it is a question of jurisdictional error.

    10. I also hold that to file a document under O. 13, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code is a right of a party in a suit. If that valuable right is denied, then that amounts to a decision in a case within the meaning of S. 115 of the Code. Learned counsel for the opposite party has relied on two decisions of this Court, namely, in Ramgulam Choudhary v. Nawin Choudhary (AIR 1972 Pat 499) and in Parsuram Dubey… v. Mahanth Laxman Das & Others…Opp. Parties. (AIR 1974 Pat 278). These two cases have been decided before the amendment of the Civil P.C in 1976. At that relevant time, “Explanation” under sub-sec. (2) of S. 115 of the Code was not in existence. Therefore these cases do not apply to the present case. The meaning of the expression “case decided” has been widened by virtue of the explanation to sub-sec. (2) of S. 115, as explained by me earlier. But I am still of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldevdas Shivlal (AIR 1970 SC 406) (supra) is still a good law.

    11. If the private documents are not filed before the court below, the petitioner shall not be entitled to prove those documents and, ultimately, he may lose the case. Therefore, by not entertaining these private documents which are relevant documents, according to the learned counsel of the petitioner, his suit will be disposed of against him. In my opinion, proviso (b) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 115 of the Code will also be attracted to this case. If the order is allowed to stand, it will occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioner against whom it was made. If the documents are not taken on the record, the petitioner will not at all be able to prove his case.

    12. In this connection, sub-sec. (2) of S. 115 of the Code is relevant. Sub-section (2) of S. 115 of the Code provides that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. It is worthy to note that no appeal lies against the impugned order. Learned counsel has further referred to Section 115(1) of the Code. It provides that civil revision is maintainable in which no appeal lies against a decision of a subordinate court. In my opinion, it means that if no appeal can be preferred against an impugned order, then a civil revision petition will be maintained. If an appeal can be preferred against an impugned order, then civil revision will not lie. Even if a first appeal is maintainable against the final judgment, then also civil revision is maintainable.

    If S. 115(1) of the Code is read along with sub-sec. (2) of S. 115 of the Code, it is quite clear that a civil revision petition will lie if no appeal can be preferred against the impugned order under revision. If an appeal lies against the impugned order of revision, then civil revision is not maintainable. I, therefore, do not accept the contention of Mr. Kailash Roy to the effect that if an appeal is maintainable against the final judgment, then no civil revision will lie against any order which has been passed during the course of the suit or proceeding. I hold that if an appeal lies against the impugned order of revision, then only the civil revision is not maintainable.

    13. By virtue of the explanation to sub-sec. (2) of S. 115 of the Code, it is clear that even if there is a procedural error and if it determines the rights and obligations in controversy between the parties, then civil revision is maintainable. Hence, in my opinion, the court below acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. As discussed above, I set aside the portion of the order by which the private documents filed by the petitioner were not received in evidence on the grounds mentioned above. The opposite party is also entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of the documents which have been filed in the court below.

    14. In the result, the petition is allowed and a portion of the order by which the private documents were not received by the court below is set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs.

    15. Let the records of the court below be sent down immediately.

    Petition allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Mahanth Som Prakash Das v. Sri Udasin Panchayati Akhara Bara And Others Opposite Parties.
    (Sep 9, 1982)