IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10592 of 2011 Tribhuwan Dubey Versus Jagru Mahto & Ors ---------------------------------- O R D E R 13. 14.12.2011. 1. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Ashok Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Din Bandhu Singh on behalf of the respondent. 2. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which has been filed for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by Sub Judge IXth, Sasaram in title suit NO.118 of 1997 whereby the learned Court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner to recall the order dated 08.07.2002 by which the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was closed for adducing two documents as evidence. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the two documents sought to be adduced in the suit as evidence are essential for just decision in the case and for doing justice. After closure of the plaintiff evidence on 08.07.2002, the plaintiff filed application before the Court below for calling the compensation, case record from title suit No.199 of 1997 and original registered from the consolidation Officer of Dehri Anso. 4. The learned Court below allowed the prayer - 2 - imposing cost of Rs.200/- and the documents were called for and thereafter, the petitioner filed application on 07.08.2006 for recalling the order whereby the petitioner’s evidence was closed but the learned Court below wrongly rejected the said application for recall of the order on the ground of delay only. According to the learned counsel, the documents were not in possession of the petitioners and further that the service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. has not been denied by the State of Bihar. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. Din Bandhu Singh, submitted that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner because the respondent’s evidence has also been closed and the case has been fixed for final argument. In such circumstances, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the plaintiff on the ground of delay only and the learned Court below observed that the case has been posted for final argument. Admittedly, therefore, when the impugned order was passed, the argument of the suit was not going on. It is also admitted fact that on the prayer of the petitioner, some documents were called for which are available on record. The suit is of the year 1997. The provision as contained in Order 18 Rule 17A has been deleted by the - 3 - Amendment Act 22 of 2002. 7. In the case of K. Velu Swami Vs. N. Palani Sami 2011 (11) S.C.C. 275, the Apex Court has held that inherent power of the Code is not affected even after deletion of the Order 18 Rule 17A. The Court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice subject to such terms as the Court may deem fit to impose. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to receive the documents even after amendment of C.P.C. The Court had the jurisdiction to receive the documents if those are necessary for just decision of the case and for doing justice between the parties. Only on the ground of delay, the documents sought to be produced cannot be rejected. In the present case at our hand, the learned Court below did not consider the fact as to whether after due diligence, the petitioner could have produced the same or not at earlier date. On the contrary, the application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the documents were called for but rejected the same on the ground of delay only. In my opinion, the learned Court below has not exercised the jurisdiction properly. 9. Thus, this writ application is allowed and the - 4 - impugned order is set aside. The petitioner’s application for production of the documents is allowed. The defendant- respondent is at liberty to rebut the said documentary evidence. Patna High Court, Patna The 14thday of December, 2011 Sanjeev/N.A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)