Krishen Lal Ishar vs Kb.Mohd.Ramzan Sofi

The trial court of 1st. Additional Munsiff has declined to receive in evidence the following documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff out

of time under O. 13 R. 2 C. P. C. namely.

Letter purported to have been written by the defendant to the plaintiff on 7111975.

Photographs of the subject of dispute purported to have been taken on:

i. 28111970

ii. 591976

iii. 1431980

iv. 111980

The plaintiff's explanation for the late production of the letter was that it was in his records and could not be traced by him earlier. There was no

explanation for the late production of the photographs. All that was stated was that these were the photographs which were taken when the

commissioner visited the spot. The trial court has held that the reason given by the plaintiff for the late production of the letter is not a good reason.

It has further held that some of the photographs are old photographs which have been taken prior to the institution of the suit and no cause has

been given for their late production The other photographs cannot be allowed to come on record because the Commissioner has already placed on

record along with his report the relevant copies of the photographs. On these finding, the court has declined to receive in evidence the letter and

the photographs.

O. 13. R. 2 invests the trial court with the discretion to receive in evidence any document produced out of time provided the party producing the

same gives a satisfactory explanation for its nonproduction at the time of the first hearing. The discretion so given must be exercised liberally in

order to advance the cause of justice and accordingly whether a document, whether public or private, is above suspicion, it should be allowed to

come in evidence if it is necessary for the just decision of the case The trial court has not considered the matter concerning the letter in this

perspective. Accordingly the part of the order dealing with the letter must be set side and the court must be asked to reconsider the question and

make fresh orders in that behalf

So far as the part of the order dealing with the photographs is concerned, I see no good ground for interference with it. Some of these

photographs have been taken in the year 1970 and 1976 prior to the institution of the suit But they have not been produced alongwith the plaint or

at the first hearing and no explanation whatsoever has been given for this lapse and accordingly their authenticity cannot be said to free from doubt.

The trial court has rightly declined to receive the same in evidence. So far as other photographs are concerned the stand taken by the lower court

is that they have been allegedly taken in presence of the Commissioner who has already filed the relevant photograps. The obvious implication is

that these are not material documents and when that is so the court was justified in refusing the same in evidence. For, the law is well settled shat

vexatious and dilatory applications for the receptions of documents cannot be granted under O. 13 R. 2

The result therefore is that this revision succeeds and is allowed in part The order of the trial court relating to the letter is set aside and the court

is directed to pass fresh orders in this behalf keeping in view }he observations made above. In other respects the order of the trial court shall

remain in tact. There shall be no order as to costs. The party present is directed to appear in the trial court on 1061983.