JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. The petitioner is the defendant in T.S. No. 18 of 1993 pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack. His application dated 23.2.1998 filed for admitting certain documents having been rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 24.2.1998 and revision carried by him before the Learned District Judge, Cuttack having been dismissed on 23.3.1999 he has preferred this Writ application challenging the aforesaid orders.
2. Case of the plaintiffs-opposite parties is that they are the owner of the suit property and the defendant-petitioner is a tenant under them. The suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant-petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the written statement the defendant-petitioner has taken a stand that his mother acquired Darpattadari Patta is respect of the suit land and disputed ownership of the plaintiffs, the basic question that requires to be decided is whether the defendant-petitioner is a tenant under the plaintiffs or is the owner of the property. By the time the application was filed for admitting documents hearing of the suit had already started and examination of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs had been closed. It is also stated that two of the witnesses on behalf of the defendant had been examined by the time the said petition was filed. In the petition the defendant-petitioner prayed for admitting near about 20 documents in order to prove that he is the owner of the property. The said petition was rejected on the ground that they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue and if such documents are admitted at such a belated stage, it will amount to reopening of the suit again. Trial Court having rejected the petition the matter was carried by the defendant-petitioner to the Court of Learned District Judge in a revision. With similar finding Learned District Judge dismissed the revision.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the aforesaid two orders submitted that the documents sought to be admitted are relevant for the purpose of finding out as to whether the defendant-petitioner is the owner of the property in the suit or not. Even though the documents were sought to be admitted at a belated stage since they are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue the Learned Trial Court should have allowed the application for admitting the documents. It was also contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that though in the original written statement there was no reference to the aforesaid document, in the additional written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner the reference to all the documents have been made. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of this Court to show that for a fair trial the documents should have been admitted by the Trial Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-opposite parties, on the other hand, referring to Orders 8 and 13 of CPC submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure has made provisions for production and admission of documents at different stages. The defendant-petitioner was aware of the existence of these documents even at the time of filing the original written statement. He did not refer to those documents in the written statement nor filed copies thereof at the appropriate stage and sought for admitting those documents at a later stage so that conclusion of the suit is delayed.
4. As admitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner the documents now sought to be admitted have not been referred to in the original written statement. It is stated by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said documents have been referred to in the additional written statement. Even accepting such a contention it is required for this Court to examine as to whether the documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. The issue is whether the defendant-petitioner is the owner of the property as claimed by him or not. The documents sought to be admitted into evidence are available in Annexure-3. Perusal of the said documents clearly indicate that most of them relate to orders passed in proceeding under Section 144, Cr.P.C. and enquiry report of Tahasildar produced in the said proceeding. The other documents relate to holding tax, holding number plate, assessment list, electoral card, voter list, etc. Admittedly the defendant-petitioner is in possession of the property and the suit has been filed for his eviction for the same. The documents which are now sought to be admitted into evidence mostly relate to the question of possession and do not relate to the question to title. There being no dispute that the defendant-petitioner is in possession of the disputed property, I am of the view that there is no need for admitting the said documents. Rent receipts which are sought to be admitted into evidence in order to prove title over the property have been allowed by the Courts below. So far as other documents are concerned, they mainly relate to the question of possession.
5. Apart from the above, Order 8, Rules 1 and 2, CPC provides that where the defendant relies on any document in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce in Court when the written statement is presented by him. Admittedly, in the original written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner there is no reference to the aforesaid documents and list of said documents had not been filed. Even though additional written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioner and reference was made to the said documents, copies there of were not filed in the Court. Under Order 13 of CPC before settlement of issues it was also open for the petitioner to produce the documents. Even though the said documents were in his possession he preferred not to file those documents and only after hearing of the suit commenced and plaintiffs witnesses were examined a petition was filed for admitting the documents. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner having neglected in his duty to produce documents at the relevant time and appropriate stage he cannot be allowed to seek for admitting said documents at this stage of the suit and if the prayer is allowed, it will amount to reopening of the suit. Reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner on a decision of this Court in the case of Bhikari Charan Patra v. Basanti Bewa and Ors., . This Court in the aforesaid decision has observed that the object of the Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 is not to penalize the party but to secure a fair trial of the case. Only when such a provision is invoked with malafide and the move is to cause delay or vexation the cause shown cannot be held to be good cause shown to the satisfaction of the court. The doors of the discretionary jurisdiction should be closed. Where, however, the document is vital and would assist the Court in coming to a decision, the doors should not be shut out. There is no dispute about the proposition of law as observed earlier. Apart from the above, except rent receipts all other documents sought to be admitted only relate to question of possession. There being no dispute that the defendant-petitioner is in possession of the disputed property, admission of such documents is not necessary. Moreover, in the petition filed for admitting said documents no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the petitioner except that the said documents were misplaced. I am, therefore, of the view that the both the Courts below have rightly rejected the petition. Moreover, there being concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below, there is hardly any scope for this Court in the Writ Application to interfere.
6. In view of the above, the Writ Application has no merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.