2001 (11) TMI 1046 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against judgment and order for specific performance of agreement to sell, rejection of application for production of documents under order 13 rule 2 CPC.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell
The respondent filed a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land and a residential plot. The appellant denied executing such an agreement and claimed misuse of signatures on blank stamp paper. The trial court rejected the appellant's application under order 13 rule 2 CPC for production of certain documents, which was upheld by the High Court. The appellant sought to produce certified copies of relevant documents, but the courts found no good cause for late production. The High Court concluded that no irregularity or error relating to jurisdiction was committed by the trial court in refusing to admit the documents. The appellant's cause for late production was not considered a "good cause" as required under order 13 rule 2 CPC. The power under this rule can be exercised liberally, but the appellant's explanation did not meet the standard of a good cause. The trial court's decision was deemed not to be a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and the appellant was advised to raise this contention at the appellate stage if a decree is passed against him.

Issue 2: Rejection of Application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC
The appellant's application under order 13 rule 2 CPC for the production of specific documents was rejected by the trial court and the High Court. The appellant argued that the documents were genuine and should be allowed for production, despite the delay. The courts, however, found no sufficient cause for the late submission of the documents and upheld the trial court's decision. The High Court emphasized that the trial court did not commit any error or irregularity in refusing to admit the documents, as they were not referenced in the appellant's written statement and no good cause was shown for their non-production at the relevant time. The appellant's explanation for the delay in producing the documents was not considered a valid reason under order 13 rule 2 CPC. The appellate stage was suggested as the appropriate platform for the appellant to challenge the decision if a decree is passed against him.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the courts found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's decision regarding the rejection of the appellant's application for the production of documents under order 13 rule 2 CPC.