ORDER
1. These two CRPs are against the order refusing to entertain the documents filed by the petitioners before the Trial Court under Order 13 Rule 1. The Trial Court considered the nature of the documents and came to the conclusion that the documents are irrelevant and reception of such documents is not proper.
2. Heard Mr. Rajeev, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Natraj, appearing for the respondents and the cases as taken up for disposal by consent of parties.
3. Order 8 Rule l(2) has been introduced in CPC by Karnataka Amendment ROC 2526/59. The Karnataka Amendment reads as follows :
“Order 8, Rule 1(2) The defendant shall endorse on the written statement or annex thereto a list of documents on which he relies, whether in his possession or power or not, as evidence in support of his defence or case, and the provisions of Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII of this Code shall as far as may apply thereto.
(3) Along with the written statement the defendant shall file into Court an acknowledgement signed by the plaintiff or his pleader in token of having received a copy thereof or if no such copy had been so delivered to the plaintiff or his pleader, a copy thereof certified to be true by the defendant or his pleader which copy shall be furnished to the plaintiff or his pleader by the office of the Court.”
4. This contemplates as early as possible that the defendant must file all documents whether they are in his power, possession or not. In fact, Order 8 Rule 2(a) speaks about filing of documents along with a written statement.
“(2) Save as otherwise provided in Rule 8-A, where the defendant relies on any document (whether or not in his possession or power) in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such documents !n a list, and shall,
(a) if a written statement is presented, annex the list to the written statement :
Provided that where the defendant, in his written statement, claims a set-off or makes a counter-claim based on a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court at the time of presentation of the written statement and shall at the same time deliver the document or copy thereof to be filed with the written statement.
(b) if a statement is not presented, present the list to the Court at the first hearing of the suit.
(3) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(4) If no such list is so annexed or presented, the defendant shall be allowed such further period for the purpose as the Court may think fit.
(5) A document which ought to be entered in the list referred to in Sub-rule (2), and which is not entered, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit.”
5. The only exception that is contemplated in Order 8 Rule 2 is provided in Rule 6.
“(6) Nothing in Sub-rule (5) shall apply to documents produced for the cross-examination of plaintiffs witnesses or in answer to any case set up by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory”.
6. Even Rule 5 is controlled by Rule 7 in granting leave. This is what Rule 7 says.
“(7) Where a Court grants leave under Sub-rule (5), it shall record its reasons for so doing, and no such leave shall be granted unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-entry of the document in the list referred to in Sub-rule (2).”
7. Thus, it is seen that CPC contemplates filing of documents along with the written submissions so far as defendant is concerned arid along with the plaint so far as the plaintiff is concerned.
8. Order 13 contemplates for production of documents. Order 13 Rule 1 contemplates filing of documents before the settlement of issues or at any time. In fact, Order 2 gives effect to non-production of documents in the following words.
“Rule (2) mandates that no documentary evidence in possession or power of the party which should have been filed or produced, but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule (1), shall be received at subsequent stage of the proceedings. This Rule (2) puts a bar by giving a negative mandate, directing the Court that it shall not admit any documentary evidence which has been in possession of a party or power of the party, but which has not been produced as required by Rule (1), at any stage subsequent to the stage of framing of the issues.
Inherent powers are ordinarily not to be exercised so as to render any provision of the Code nugatory. No doubt inherent powers of the Court are not circumscribed or controlled or otherwise affected by any provision of the code.”
9. The Trial Judge has taken the consideration of Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 and also considering Rule 3 regarding the relevance of the documents came to the conclusion that these documents are irrelevant.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajeev, contended that the Trial Court has not exercised jurisdiction vested in it and Order 13 could not have been invoked.
11. To avoid the delay in disposal of cases and the trial, production of documents at a later stage is prohibited. In fact one of the proper amendments to the CPC is to achieve this object.
12. This Court had occasion to consider the question in M.C. Madhura v. Bharitiya Vidya Bhavan reported in 1980 (2) KLJ 305 and held that an order passed by the Court during the hearing of a suit holding that certain documents sought to be produced by a witness were inadmissible and irrelevant and would not amount to a case decided and is not revisable.
13. In fact, the learned Judge has followed a full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in B.B. Gurudevi v. Choudhri MD. Bakhsh AIR 1943 Lahore 65 Full Bench, wherein the full bench has held :
“5. This question came up before a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of B.B. Gurudevi v. Chaudhri Md. Bakhsh FB(1). In the course of the judgment, his Lordship Dalip Singh, J. at page 80 has observed, inter alia :
‘It seems clear to me that if a Court decides merely to summon a witness or rejects or admits a document as evidence in the case, or postpones or adjourns the case, such an order cannot possibly be held to be a case decided.”
14. This view was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1968 Punjab and Haryana 251 (Sic) Sagarmal v. Gulab Chand. This view has been reiterated by my Brother Mr. Tllhari in CRP. No. 349/94 Murugesh v. Narayana and another disposed of on 6-7-1998. It is reported in ILR 1998 Karnataka Short Notes 99.
15. In the light of the legal provisions incorported above, I am of the view that the documents filed at the very later stage cannot be admitted in evidence.
16. In this view, these CRPs are dismissed conforming to the orders of the Trial Court.