Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
2001 INSC 570
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
  • B.D Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant;
  • Ms Shobha, Advocate for K.L Mehta & Co., Advocates, for the Respondent.
Judges
  • Justice M.B. Shah
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
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
Neutral Citations
2001 INSC 570
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)
  • B.D Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant;
  • Ms Shobha, Advocate for K.L Mehta & Co., Advocates, for the Respondent.
Judges
  • Justice M.B. Shah
Acts
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent instituted a civil suit seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 1-8-1992 for the sale of agricultural land and a residential plot valued at Rs 1,50,000. The appellant, in a written statement filed on 18-1-1996, denied executing any such agreement and alleged misuse of his signatures on blank stamp paper.

After the respondent closed his evidence, the appellant applied under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to introduce three documents: (i) a certified copy of an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer affecting part of the disputed land, (ii) electricity bills relating to the house situated on the property, and (iii) a registered sale deed dated 9-2-1987 covering 900 sq yd of the same property.

On 11-1-2001 the trial court rejected the applications, holding that (a) the plaintiff had already closed his evidence, (b) the defendant had not filed an affidavit, and (c) no “good cause” for late production had been shown. The appellant’s revision under Section 115 CPC was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court on 27-2-2001, which agreed that there was no reference to the documents in the written statement and that no jurisdictional error or material irregularity had occurred. The present appeal challenges that High Court order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the appellant should be permitted, under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC, to produce additional documents after the plaintiff’s evidence has closed but before recording his own evidence.
  2. Whether the trial court’s refusal to accept those documents constituted a “material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction” justifying interference in revision under Section 115 CPC.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The documents in question are certified public documents whose authenticity is not in doubt.
  • They were originally handed to one Palaram (a trusted acquaintance) for filing and were lost; certified copies were obtained as soon as the loss was discovered.
  • Production before the commencement of the appellant’s evidence would cause no prejudice to the respondent, who could be granted an opportunity to rebut.

Respondent's Position

The respondent objected to late production, raising several contentions; the Supreme Court considered it unnecessary to detail those objections.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993 “Good cause” under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC requires a lesser degree of proof than “sufficient cause”. Illustrated that even if the trial court erred in treating the appellant’s explanation as not a “good cause,” such error would not automatically justify revision under Section 115 CPC.
Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria, AIR 1953 SC 23; 1953 SCR 136 “Material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction” does not encompass mere errors of fact or law. Supported the conclusion that the trial court’s order, even if erroneous, did not suffer from a jurisdictional defect warranting High Court interference.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court acknowledged that courts have wide discretion under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC and that “good cause” should be construed liberally. Nevertheless, the central enquiry was not whether the trial court’s ruling was correct but whether it was so jurisdictionally flawed that revisionary interference under Section 115 CPC was warranted.

Referring to Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, the Court observed that even a potentially erroneous assessment of “good cause” remains within the trial court’s jurisdiction. Citing Keshardeo Chamria v. Radha Kissen Chamria, it emphasised that “material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction” does not include mistakes of fact or law. The Court further noted that refusal to admit the documents did not inevitably lead to a failure of justice because the appellant could still raise the issue in a future appeal against any decree passed.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the High Court had correctly declined to interfere with the trial court’s discretionary order.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Dismissed. No order as to costs.

The immediate effect is that the appellant cannot, at this stage, introduce the disputed documents in the pending trial; he retains the right to challenge the exclusion in any subsequent appeal against a final decree. The decision turns on settled principles governing revisional jurisdiction and does not establish a new precedent beyond reaffirming the limited scope of Section 115 CPC.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Madanlal v. Shyamlal .

    Order

    1. Leave granted.

    2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 27-2-2001 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SB Civil Revision No. 216 of 2001.

    3. The facts of the case are that: the respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 1-8-1992, agricultural land and residential plot for a consideration of Rs 1,50,000. The appellant submitted written statement on 18-1-1996 and denied that he has executed any such agreement to sell in favour of the respondent and that the respondent has misused his signatures taken on the blank stamp paper. After the evidence of witnesses of the respondent was recorded, the appellant filed applications under Order 13 Rule 2 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 the petitioner on 9-2-1987 in favour of one Nathu Ram pertaining to 900 sq yd 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 the plaintiff has closed his evidence and that the defendant has neither submitted his own affidavit nor has made out a good cause for late production of the said documents. That order was challenged before the High Court of Rajasthan by filing revision petition, which was rejected by the 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 Court also arrived at the conclusion that the trial court has not committed any irregularity or error relating to jurisdiction in refusing to take the documents on record. Hence, revision was dismissed.

    4. The appellant sought to produce certified copy of the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, registered sale deed and electricity bills. For the genuineness of these documents, there may not be any doubt. The 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 the plaintiff should be given some opportunity 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 respondent has objected to the production of the said documents by raising various contentions, which are not required to be dealt with in this appeal.

    5. 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 lesser degree of proof than that of “sufficient cause” (Re: Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar AIR 1964 SC 993). Maybe that order is erroneous, however, it cannot be said that such order passed by the trial court could be interfered with under Section 115 CPC. It cannot be said that the trial court has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in 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 AIR 1953 SC 23, 1953 SCR 136). It is open to the appellant to raise this contention at the appellate stage, if decree is passed against him.

    6. Hence, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

    Comments

    Madanlal v. Shyamlal .
    (Nov 9, 2001)