Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, J.

1. This application by the defendant first party is directed against an order dated the 5th November, 1973, admitting into evidence a certain document.

2. In a suit, being Title Suit No. 158 of 1969, the relief sought was a declaration that Madarghat Thakurbari with its deities and properties, mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint, is a Public Hindu Religious Trust. This was a suit in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). After hearing of the suit had progressed for quite sometime, on 20-9-1973 a petition was filed under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code for the admission of a bahi, known as Karyabahi Bahi (wrongly described as Karyakram Bahi) of Natya Kala Parishad, known as Ram Krishna Natya Kala Parishad. According to the Plaintiffs, this document was being filed in support of what was stated in paragraph 8 of the plaint, namely, that a committee was appointed to advise the Mahanth on matters of development of the Thakurbari, and in pursuance thereof a Natya Kala Parishad of the Thakurbari had been established, in order to indicate the public character of the Thakurbari. The admission of this document was objected to on behalf of the defendant-petitioner, firstly, on the ground that it was being filed at a very late stage of the suit and that the document was not even in the list of documents filed in accordance with Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code, and, secondly, because, according to the defendant, the said document was false, fabricated and forged. The learned Subordinate Judge found enough justification for the late filing of the said document and further observed that "it is apparent that there is a good ground for allowing the plaintiffs prayer for getting the document admitted into evidence." The document was, therefore, admitted into evidence by the impugned order.

3. Mr. Sen appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Court below having not considered the relevancy of the document had erred in admitting it merely after finding good cause for the late filing of the document. According to Mr. Sen, in terms of Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code a Court was required not only to look into the question as to whether there was good reason for the delay in filing of the document but to further consider as to whether the document should at all be admitted having regard to the question of its genuineness, relevancy and such other facts. In the instant case, on reading the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, it was submitted, that the only consideration which the Court thought to be necessary for disposing of the petition under Order 13, Rule 2 was to find out as to whether or not there was good ground for the delay in filing the document. Mr. Sen, therefore, submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge has acted with material irregularity and has also failed to exercise his jurisdiction properly.

4. On behalf of the opposite party the reply was that in terms of Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code the question of relevancy or otherwise of a document or of its genuineness was absolutely foreign. What was necessary for a court to consider, while disposing of an application under Order 13, Rule 2, was to find out as to whether the party had good cause for non-production of the document. In other words, the only thing which the Court was required to do, while passing an order with regard to the admission of a document in terms of Order 13, Rule 2 was that it should look to the cause for the delay and to nothing else. It was further submitted that in any event the revision before this Court was not proper, firstly, because it was not a revision against "a case decided" and, secondly, because the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition in revision should be dismissed.

5. In my opinion, the scope of Order 13, Rule 2, as canvassed on behalf of the opposite party, is not a correct scope. I have already stated that, according to the opposite party, in terms of Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code, the court was only required to see as to whether or not there was good cause for the delay in filing the document.

Order 13 deals with production, impounding and return of documents. Rule 1 thereof says that all documentary evidence of every description in possession of parties to the suit should be produced at the first hearing of the suit and if it is so produced the Court shall receive the documents provided they are accompanied by an accurate list prepared in the prescribed form. Then Rule 2 lays down the effect of non-production of the document or documents at the first hearing of the suit. The rule reads:

"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 1 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,"

This rule has actually two parts. The first part casts a duty upon the party concerned to show good cause for non-production of the document at the first hearing of the suit, and the second part casts a duty upon the court to record its reason for receiving such evidence. In my opinion, the reasons, which the Court has to record for receiving such document, cannot be limited by the first part of the said provision. The Court, besides receiving a document and accepting the cause for the delay, as shown by the party, has yet to apply its mind to find out as to whether the document should be admitted and in doing so it has of necessity to find out, even though in a summary manner, that prima facie the document was a genuine document and that it has some relevance to the case.

Mr. Mitra appearing for the opposite parties has cited certain decisions in support of his proposition that while dealing with the order under Order 13 Rule 2 the Court need look no further than to decide as to whether the party concerned had good reason for filing the evidence after delay. One of the decisions is in the case of Hari Ram v. Lachmi Singh (: AIR 1928 Pat 537 [LQ/PatHC/1928/95] ). This decision supports the point as enunciated by me and not as canvassed by the learned counsel for the opposite party. One of the relevant observations is as under:

"............ Now, if there is no ground for believing that the document tendered has been manufactured, then, in my opinion, the Judge exercises his discretion improperly in rejecting a document on the ground that it was produced too late ............"

No case law has been shown to me which has held the view that the Court, while admitting an evidence in terms of Order 13, Rule 2 was precluded from going into tha genuineness or the relevancy of the document and more so, even if the admission of the document was challenged by the other side on that ground.

Now in the instant case, although two specific objections were raised by the defendant-petitioner to the receiving of the said document, the learned Subordinate Judge dealt with only one of them, namely, with regard to the late filing of the document. He has completely omitted to consider the other equally important objection, namely, with regard to the genuineness of the document. Normally, therefore, I should have set aside this order for a fresh consideration by the learned Subordinate Judge but I do not think that it would be a proper thing to do in this case.

The learned Subordinate Judge has admitted the document and while admitting has observed that the defendant will also have an opportunity "to adduce evidence in rebuttal if he so likes." That clearly shows that even though the document has been admitted, it can cause no prejudice to the defendant-petitioner, firstly, because he has given a specific right to the defendant to lead evidence in rebuttal and even if that right was not given, in terms of Section 105 of the Code the decision in the suit could be assailed in appeal if it was based upon the document which, according to the defendant, has been wrongly admitted into evidence.

Mr. Mitra has brought to my notice a decision of this Court reported in Ramgulam v. Nawin, : AIR 1972 Pat 499 [LQ/PatHC/1971/167] in which the question was as to whether this Court should interfere in revision when some document was wrongly admitted into evidence. The decision has proceeded on the footing that it was not a "case decided" and consequently even if there was an error of jurisdiction in admitting a document into evidence, that would be no ground for interfering in revision with the order admitting the document into evidence.

6. Having regard to the fact that notwithstanding the admission of the said document, the petitioner would not be prejudiced in his defence and further that the admission of the document was not a "case decided". I refrain from interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge.

I may, however, make it clear that it shall be open to the defendant to raise such plea in rebuttal as may throw light upon the genuineness or otherwise of the document in question and also with respect to its relevancy. The application is dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, without costs.