1986 PLP 2167 (CLC)

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously criticised the impugned order declaring the same to be illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as no reason in support of the orders were given by the learned trial Court and the order does not show that the trial Court had applied its conscious mind in the matter. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents has half-heartedly attempted to defend the impugned order by submitting that since the trial Court has given permission to'-produce the oral and documentary, evidence, it can be well-presumed that the trial Court ha: passed this order after applying its mind.

4. I have considered the arguments presented by the learned counse for the parties and have gone through the applications of the respondents, the replies given by the petitioner/defendants herein and the impugned orders.

5. Admittedly, the application for the additional oral and documentary evidence was given .after the parties had presented final arguments and the case was ripe for judgment. It would be convenient to reproduce the relevant provisions of law. Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. reads as follows: ‑ "No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of rule I shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non‑production thereof; and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing." Section 151, C.P.C. may be reproduced as under:‑ "

151. Saving of Inherent Powers of Court.‑‑Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."

6. The examination of Rule 2, Order XIII, C.P.C. shows that the respondents /plaintiffs were not entitled to adduce oral evidence and to produce documents as additional evidence at late stage as a matter of right. No doubt the court was competent to permit the respondents/ plaintiffs to produce the documents at late stage of the proceedings but for that the Court had to be satisfied that good cause did exist for the non‑production thereof and in case the trial Court was inclined to receive any such evidence, it had to record reasons for so doing. As for section 151, C.P.C. I am of the opinion that for invoking the inherent power, the Court had also to give reasons and the Court cannot exercise its inherent powers arbitrarily.

7. Before proceedigns further, I would like to reproduce the impugned order which reads as follows:‑

8. This order when examined in the light of observations made in 'a para. No.6, can hardly be termed, treated and recognized as a judicial order inasmuch as it does not indicate that the learned trial Court had applied its mind to the factual and legal aspects of the matter involved in the applications. Furthermore, the learned trial Court has not given any reason as required by Rule 2, Order XIII, C.P.C. The superior Courts have more than once, declared such like orders not only illegal but arbitrary. Since the learned trial Court has not given reasons in the order and have left the same for the imagination of the reader, the impugned order cannot be approved by this Court and it can safely be held hat the learned trial Court has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally.

9. For what has been stated above, the impugned order is, hereby, set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with the direction order as to costs. H . B . T . Revision granted.