R.R Yadav, J.:— Heard.
2. Perused the order impugned dated 3.1.98 passed by the learned trial court allowing the application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13 CPC moved by the plaintiff-non-petitioners and rejecting the objection raised by the defendant-revisionists against receiving documentary evidence under the aforesaid Rule for the purposes of cross-examination of witnesses of the defendant-revisionists.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the revisionists that learned trial court has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order inasmuch as the documents received in evidence after settlement of issues are irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. According to the learned counsel for the revisionists, if the order impugned is allowed to stand it would occasion a failure of justice and irreparable loss to the defendant-revisionists.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is disputing the correctness of the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists on the ground that the documents which are required to be received in evidence either under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 or under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC must be genuine but its relevancy and admissibility is to be examined at a subsequent stage as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Order 13, C.P.C
5. For better and deeper appreciation of the aforesaid rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties the relevant provisions on the subject is required to be noticed in chronological order. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 or Order 13, CPC prior to the amendment in 1976 required the parties or their pleaders to produce the documentary evidence “at the first hearing of the suit” whereas after amendment, the documentary evidence is to be produced “at or before the settlement of issues”. The solemn object of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC is not to penalise the parties but the courts are given discretion to receive any documentary evidence at later stage of the suit after settlement of issues provided there is no suspicion in the mind of the courts relating to authenticity of such documents sought to be produced under the aforesaid Rules of Civil Procedure Code either by the plaintiffs or defendants.
6. A conjoint reading of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC reveal that the courts are empowered to consider not only reason for non-production but the authenticity of the document and delaying effect of the reception in evidence of the document in question. The aforesaid Rules of Order 13, CPC are to be construed liberally so as to advance justice between the parties. The documents whether public or private if its authenticity is beyond suspicion should be ordinarily received in evidence by the trial courts under Sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties leaving the question relating to relevancy and admissibility to be decided at later stage of the suit as envisaged under Rule 3 of Order 13, CPC. The courts while receiving evidence after settlement of issues are under legal obligation to give opportunity of rebuttal to the other party against whom such documentary evidence is received on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit and proper in the circumstance of the each case.
7. It is true that the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 13, CPC postulate that the court may at any stage of the suit reject document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible after recording the grounds of such rejection in writing. In the aforesaid Rule 3 of Order 13 CPC the stage of the suit at which the document is to be rejected by a trial court is not specified. Looking into the backlog of the cases pending in the higher courts and sub-ordinate courts and also to save the public time, it is held that where a court has doubt about relevancy and admissibility of a document and its decision is subject to an appeal then such document is to be received in evidence and its relevancy, admissibility and reliability is to be discussed by the trial courts at the end of trial of the suit while delivering the final judgment, so that reasons given by the learned trial courts may be reassessed by the appellate courts. Thus for fair trial of the suit even though a document is filed at later stage of the suit, which is found to be genuine, it should not be rejected at the stage of reception by the learned trial courts under Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of the Order 13, CPC merely following a straight jacket formula ignoring the cause of justice.
8. It is to be imbibed that ‘authenticity’ of a document, its ‘receivability’ in evidence, its ‘relevancy’, its ‘admissibility’ and its ‘reliability’ are different connotations and each expression carries a different meaning. The trial courts while exercising its jurisdiction under Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC are to confine its scrutiny only upto authenticity of a document sought to be produced after settlement of issues at the later stage of the suit and delaying effect of the reception of such document and leaving the issue relating to relevancy, admissibility and reliability of such documents to be decided at the end of the trial of the suit while delivering its judgments so that the appellate court may reassess the question relating to relevancy, admissibility and reliability of such documents decided by the learned trial courts. As regards delaying effect at the stage of reception of documents under the aforesaid Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC., the trial courts may compensate the party against whom such documents are filed at the later stage of suit by awarding reasonable cost for inconvenience suffered by such party and also invariably by giving opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal.
9. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that invariably almost in all civil suits wherein either application under Subrules (1) or (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC is allowed or rejected the party against whom the order is passed rushed up in revision under the amended Sec. 115, CPC and now this Court is flooded with such revisions. One of the reason for filing such revisions is that aggrieved party considers that once a document is received in evidence either under Sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC its relevancy, admissibility and reliability can not be questioned at subsequent stage. The aforesaid notion is misconceived for the reasons discussed hereinabove within the meaning of Rule 3 of Order 13, CPC. The reception of documents under Sub-rules (1) or sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC is within the discretion of the trial courts subject to re-assessment by the appellate courts in appeal. It is pertinent to observe that if documents tendered either under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 or sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC are rejected by the trial courts, then it can be reagitated under Sub-rule (1)(a) of Rule 27 of Order 41, CPC before the appellate courts instead of invoking the revisional jurisdiction under the amended Sec. 115, CPC.
10. It is further to be noticed that under newly inserted proviso (a) and proviso (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 115, CPC by Act No. 104 of 1976, there is complete prohibition to vary or reverse an order passed by the trial courts unless any of the condition contemplated either under proviso (a) or proviso (b) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 115, CPC is fulfilled. To my mind passing of orders either under Sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC, by the trial courts do not attract any of the condition enumerated under proviso (a) or proviso (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 115, CPC.
11. It is well to remember that reception of documents under the aforesaid Sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC do not preclude the trial court to consider the relevancy, admissibility and reliability of such documentary evidence at the end of the trial while delivering its judgment between the parties and further the order of reception of documentary evidence including its testimonial value can be reassessed by the appellate courts in appeal. At the risk of repetition it is held that the order passed by the learned trial courts under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC receiving evidence and its appreciation at the end of the trial are subject to reassessment by the appellate courts in appeal. As regard rejection of documentary evidence by the learned trial courts under the aforesaid Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC are concerned, it can be reagitated under Sub-rule (1)(a) of Rule 27 of Order 41, CPC before the appellate court.
12. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the revisionists in the present case is that once these documents are held to be authenticated and are received in evidence under subrule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC its relevancy and admissibility will not be examined by the learned trial courts in the light of Sec. 11 and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
13. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists is not acceptable for the simple reason that the stage for examining the relevancy, admissibility and reliability of these documents received in evidence by the learned trial court in exercise of its discretion under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13, CPC in the present case would reach at the end of the trial of the suit while delivering its judgment on merits between the parties but not at this stage as discussed here in above. It is made clear that the points which are being raised in the present revision petition can be raised by the revisionists at the time of the end of trial of the suit at the stage of final argument before the learned trial court. In disputably, the final decision given by the learned trial court would be appealable, therefore, the revisionists would be further entitled to reagitated these points before the appellate court in appeal as well.
14. From perusal of the record, it is clear that in the present case, an ad interim stay order was granted by this Court on 27.5.98 whereas the oral evidence of defendants was closed on 26.5.98 by the learned trial court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I consider just and proper in the interest of justice to direct the learned trial court to give two more opportunities to the defendant revisionists to adduce their entire oral evidence.
15. With the aforesaid observations, the instant revision petition is finally disposed off. Cost is made easy.
16. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the trial court on 12.4.1999 and record of the learned trial court be remitted forthwith.