JUDGMENT
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.
1. Petitioners are the defendants. Suit is filed against them for recovery of money allegedly due under insurance policy on account of the sinking of the ship ‘Sayremar Dos’ on 5th June, 1988. The petitioner alleges in this application as follows:
2. Suit was filed on 18th May, 1990. Alongwith the plaint certain documents were filed by the plaintiffs. On 3rd July, 1990 the petitioners filed their written statement. On 19th July, 1990 the respondents filed their list of two documents. The said application was granted by the Court. On 15th September, 1990 the respondents filed another list of 21 documents seeking leave to tender them in evidence. The ground alleged for delay in filing the documents was due to oversight. The Lower Court granted that application also.
3. The suit came up for trial on 15th September, 1990. The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff’s first witness, namely, Anil V. Madgaokar, started. Then the counsel for the respondents sought to tender in evidence some documents which were not included in the list of documents earlier filed. The petitioner’s counsel objected to the production of the documents. However, the Court took on file those documents subject to its decision on admissibility, that may be taken later. On 22nd January, 1991 the respondents made an application to the Court that they may be allowed to rely on certain documents, which were not listed in the earlier list, but which were already produced by the respondents on 15th September, 1991. Here also the reason stated was due to oversight. The Court also took on file those documents subject to proof. On 19th October, 1991 when the cross-examination of Shri Anil Madgaokar had commenced the counsel for the respondents invited the Court’s attention to the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 22nd January, 1991 and requested to pass order on that application. The Court passed an order on 19th October, 1991 which is under revision in this Revision Application.
4. The counsel of the petitioners submits that the Lower Court has committed a grievous error of jurisdiction and miscarriage of justice in entertaining the documents at this late stage. The learned Counsel also took me through all the provisions of Order XIII and the Rules contained therein of the Civil Procedure Code. Relying on the Commentary of Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure he argued that the Lower Court ought to have found the cause shown by the respondents for belated production of documents was not sufficient to accept the documents. A good cause means an adequate, sound and genuine ground or reason. He argued that the oversight which was shown as a ground in the application is not at all a good cause. Moreover the late production of documents cast suspicion on the genuineness of the documents and the rule is enacted for the protection to prevent fraud by the late production of suspicious documents. Therefore, the learned Counsel emphatically argued that the suspicious documents should not have been allowed to be produced by the Court below at the belated stage.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the production of documents in a suit by any party is a right to be exercised. It cannot be forestalled without valid reasons. He submitted that the only relevant point to be considered by the Court in these circumstances is that the production of documents should not prejudice the opposite side. He submitted that the mere entertainment of the documents will not throw a presumption on the genuineness of the documents. The genuineness, admissibility and other material points can be raised and agitated by the opposite side at the time of the cross-examination or at a later stage when the documents sought to be provided. The petitioners have got ample opportunity to challenge the veracity, genuineness and admissibility of the documents, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. In that circumstance, he argues that the Lower Court was fully justified in accepting the documents. All the grounds raised by the petitioner are only germane, if such productions prejudice the rights of the opposite party to challenge the documents. The learned Counsel for the respondents also raised an important point, namely, that a decision allowing to produce a document by a Court is not a “decision” taken in a case and it is not subject to revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The entertainment of documents does not involve a decision. Therefore, it is not a revisable order. For this purpose he relied on decisions of Baldevdas Shivlal and another v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, ; Mahanth Som Prakash Das v. Sri Udasin Panchayati Akhara Bara and others, ; Hemendra Chaudhary v. M/s. Punjab National Bank and others, and Erinhikkal Parammal Ravindran v. K. Roja and others, . All these decisions do express a uniform opinion that the entertainment of a document does not involve a decision by a Civil Court. The Supreme Court in its decision. of the aforesaid Judgment the Supreme Court stated thus :—
“A case may be said to be decided, if the Court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy; every order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
Relying upon the Supreme Court decisions a learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in Mahanth Som Prakash Das v. Sri Udasin Panchayati Akhara Bara and others, in paragraph 10 stated thus :—
“I also hold that to file a document under Order 13, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is a right of a party in a suit. If the valuable right is denied, then that amounts to a decision in a case within the meaning of section 115 of the Code.”
It is true as laid down by the Patna High Court that refusal to entertain a document definitely prejudice the right of the party but at the same time entertainment of a document when the other side has ample opportunity to prove its case by way of counter production of other documents, it cannot be said that it is a case decided by the Court. The same view has been fortified by the decision in Hemendra Chaudhary v. M/s. Punjab National Bank and others, . A learned Single Judge of that Court held in paragraph 2 as under :–
“No revision lies against an order allowing application for producing documentary evidence which was not filed at appropriate stage in accordance with Order 13, Rule 1, C.P.C. It is not a case which has been decided’ for the purpose of section 115, C.P.C.”.
After an elaborate enumeration of all these decisions on the subject, a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in paragraph 9 of his judgment in Erinhikkal Parammal Ravindran v. K. Roja and others, , concluded thus :—
“The concensus of judicial opinion is that admission of a document in evidence or refusal to send a document to an expert for an examination does not decide or adjudicate upon any right to obligation of a party.”
6. In view of the above discussions, I am inclined to accept the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents. As I pointed earlier, refusal to accept a document may prejudice the right of the parties and some times may be called as a ‘case decided’ by Civil Court and consequently the High Court can interfere under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At any rate the entertainment of a document in evidence, that too, when the other side has not ample opportunity to test the veracity and genuineness of the document, cannot be a case decided to attract revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to find out whether there is a ‘case decided’, only the rider laid down by the Supreme Court is that there must be adjudication of a right or an obligation in a ‘case’. Of-course, as I pointed out earlier, refusal to accept a document may some times cause prejudice but at the same time if it does not adjudicate a right or does not create an obligation on either of the parties, then it cannot be said that the decision is revisable under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here no right is adjudicated nor obligation is cast on the defendants or plaintiff. The petitioner’s right to challenge the veracity, genuineness or other ground of non-admissibility of documents etc. kept intact before the production of the documents and even after the production of the documents. Therefore, the acceptance of the documents while the opposite side has ample opportunity to test the veracity or genuineness of the documents is not a ‘case decided’ by the Court. That apart, a party objecting to the production of a document at any stage of the suit on the grounds enumerated in Order XIII should show to the Court first as to how it does prejudice the cause of the party objecting to it.
7. In view of the above discussion I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioners and the Civil Revision Application therefore fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged.
8. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.