B.P. Jha, J.

1. This civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 24th Mar., 1979.

2. By the impugned order, the court below refused to entertain certain documents on the record and admitted certain documents on the record. In this connection the provisions of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 13 of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) are relevant. Under Order 13, Rule 1 of the Code, a party is entitled to produce all the documentary evidence on which he intends to rely at or before the settlement of issues. Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code applies to a case where the documents are not in possession of the party concerned. If a document is not in possession of a party concerned, such a document can 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. Order 13, Rule 2 further provides that the court shall record the reasons for so doing.

3. In the present case, it is clear from paras 6, 7 and 8 of the revision petition that the documents, which were filed in the civil court on 21st Mar., 1979, were in the custody of the Additional Collector, Nalanda, in Mutation Appeal No. 53 of 1974-75. The Additional Collector ordered that these documents should be returned by an order dated 8th Mar., 1979. It is, therefore, clear that good cause was shown by the petitioner. The court did not hold that no good cause was shown for the period up to 8th Mar., 1979. The court was of opinion that no good cause was shown for the period between 8th Mar., 1979 and 20th Mar., 1979. The allegation of the petitioner was that the documents were returned to Shri Nagina Prasad, Advocate, on 8th Mar., 1979, and he handed over those documents to the petitioner on 20th Mar., 1979. This part of the case of the petitioner has not been accepted by the court below.

4. If the court means to say that the documents should have been filed on 8th Mar., 1979, then the petitioner has shown good cause for not filing the documents in the civil court. It is not required in a case under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code to explain the delay in respect of every day. It is enough for the petitioner if he has explained the delay up to 8th Mar., 1979. In my opinion, when the court accepted that good cause has been shown up to 8th Mar., 1979 the court was within its jurisdiction to receive the documents as good cause had been shown up to 8th Mar., 1979. Hence, in my opinion, the court below acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in not accepting the document on 21st Mar., 1979.

5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party contends that this civil revision petition is not maintainable on these grounds:

(i) That by the impugned order, no case has been decided by the court below.

(ii) That the revision petition is barred under the provisos (a) and (b) of Section 115 of the Code.

(iii) That civil revision petition is maintainable where no appeal is provided.

(iv) That, if at all, the impugned order which has been passed relates to an error in procedure.

6. So far as the first point is concerned, it is necessary to refer to Explanation to Section 115 of the Code which runs as follows:

"Explanation.-- In this section, the expression any case which has been decided includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding."

On a perusal of this explanation, it is clear that a civil revision petition will be maintainable against any order which determines rights and obligations of the parties in controversy.

7. In my opinion, any order means any order which determines the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy. In this connection, a reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (India) Pvt. Ltd., (: AIR 1970 SC 406 [LQ/SC/1969/200] ). In para No. 10 of the judgment, their Lordships have held that "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". In my opinion, this decision is quite applicable even after the amendment of 1976. Applying this principle, I hold that a party has a right to file the documents on which he relies at or before the settlement of issues. If a document is not filed under Order 13, Rule 1 of the Code, such a document can be filed at a subsequent stage provided the document is not in possession or power of any party.

8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was not in possession of the documents which were filed on 21st March, 1979. Those documents were in possession of the Additional Collector which were returned to the lawyer of the petitioner on 8th March, 1979. Therefore, according to the finding, the court below rejected these documents simply because the party had not explained the delay in filing the documents between 8th March, 1979 and 20th March, 1979. If good cause has been shown up to 8th March, 1979, then there is no cogent reason as to why the private documents filed by the petitioner should not have been entertained by the court below. No doubt the opposite party can challenge the relevancy of the documents while admitting them into evidence; but this is not the stage for refusing to entertain them. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that if these private documents are not taken into consideration, the whole case of the petitioner will vanish. The private documents include many registered documents also.

9. It is clear from the impugned order that the court below admitted the public documents which were filed on 21st March, 1979. Those public documents were also in the custody of the Additional Collector. No doubt, those public documents have been admitted into evidence on the concession of the learned counsel for the opposite party. But, under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code, no document can be admitted at a subsequent stage on the basis of the concession given by the lawyers of the parties. Any document can be admitted under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code if good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court. I, therefore, hold that the court admitted the public documents as good cause was shown under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code. If once a court admits the public documents at a subsequent stage, the court must admit other private documents which were filed along with the public documents on the same ground which has not been done in the present case. I, therefore, hold that it is a question of jurisdictional error.

10. 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 that valuable right is denied, then that amounts to a decision in a case within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. Learned counsel for the opposite party has relied on two decisions of this Court, namely, in Ramgulam Choudhary v. Nawin Choudhary (: AIR 1972 Pat 499 [LQ/PatHC/1971/167] ) and in Parsuram Dubey v. Mahant Laxman Das (: AIR 1974 Pat 278 [LQ/PatHC/1974/27] ). These two cases have been decided before the amendment of the Civil P. C. in 1976. At that relevant time, "Explanation" under Sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Code was not in existence. Therefore these cases do not apply to the present case. The meaning of the expression "case decided has been widened by virtue of the explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 115, as explained by me earlier. But I am still of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldevdas Shivlal (: AIR 1970 SC 406 [LQ/SC/1969/200] ) (supra) is still a good law.

11. If the private documents are not filed before the court below, the petitioner shall not be entitled to prove those documents and, ultimately, he may lose the case. Therefore, by not entertaining these private documents which are relevant documents, according to the learned counsel of the petitioner, his suit will be disposed of against him. In my opinion, proviso (b) to Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Code will also be attracted to this case. If the order is allowed to stand, it will occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioner against whom it was made. If the documents are not taken on the record, the petitioner will not at all be able to prove his case.

12. In this connection, Sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Code is relevant. Sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Code provides that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. It is worthy to note that no appeal lies against the impugned order. Learned counsel has further referred to Section 115(1) of the Code. It provides that civil revision is maintainable in which no appeal lies against a decision of a subordinate court. In my opinion, it means that if no appeal can be preferred against an impugned order, then a civil revision petition will be maintained. If an appeal can be preferred against an impugned order, then civil revision will not lie. Even if a first appeal is maintainable against the final judgment, then also civil revision is maintainable.

If Section 115(1) of the Code is read along with Sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Code, it is quite clear that a civil revision petition will lie if no appeal can be preferred against the impugned order under revision. If an appeal lies against the impugned order of revision, then civil revision is not maintainable. I, therefore, do not accept the contention of Mr. Kailash Roy to the effect that if an appeal is maintainable against the final judgment, then no civil revision will lie against any order which has been passed during the course of the suit or proceeding. I hold that if an appeal lies against the impugned order of revision, then only the civil revision is not maintainable.

13. By virtue of the explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Code, it is clear that even if there is a procedural error and if it determines the rights and obligations in controversy between the parties, then civil revision is maintainable. Hence, in my opinion, the court below acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. As discussed above, I set aside the portion of the order by which the private documents filed by the petitioner were not received in evidence on the grounds mentioned above. The opposite party is also entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of the documents which have been filed in the court below.

14. In the result, the petition is allowed and a portion of the order by which the private documents were not received by the court below is set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs.

15. Let the records of the court below be sent down immediately.