' ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.--- Since common question of facts and law are involved, therefore, Writ petitions.Nos.24897 and 24898 of 2010 are being disposed through this single judgment.
2. Mst. Bashiran Bibi, etc., respondents/plaintiffs filed two separate suits for declaration challenging the vires of some revenue entries. After the filing of written statements and settlement of issues, counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs closed the oral evidence. The petitioners also completed their oral and documentary evidence. In both the suits, the respondents/plaintiffs filed two separate applications under Order XIII, Rule 1, C:P.C. Seeking permission to produce documents with the assertion that the documents could not be appended with the plaint inadvertently and that they be allowed to be produced. The applications were dismissed by the Civil Court vide order dated 3-2-2010. Mst. Bashir Bibi, respondent/plaintiff assailed the said orders through two separate revision petitions. The revisional court accepted the same and allowed the applications under Order XII, Rule 1, C.P.C.. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioners/defendants have come before this Court through these constitutional petitions.
3. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the documents intended to be produced, were neither appended with the plaint nor relied upon and thus the revisional court should not have accepted the revision petitions as respondents failed to show any good cause for the non- production thereof.
4. Conversely, the contentions of counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs are that the documents, intended to be produced, are the copies of public record and thus related to the determination of assertions of respondents/plaintiffs regarding inheritance of deceased Naseer (predecessor-in- interest of the parties), therefore, the revisional court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction.
5. Arguments heard.
6. The admitted fact is that the respondents/plaintiffs have completed their oral evidence and they have reserved their right to produce documentary evidence. It is also an admitted fact that documents intended to be produced, in documentary evidence, were neither appended with the plaint nor mentioned in the list of reliance, in compliance of Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C., which is reproduced as under:--- "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.
7. It is mentioned in the application before the Civil Court that inadvertently, the said documents could not be relied upon and appended with the plaint, Inadvertence cannot be considered a good cause to allow the production of document which were neither relied upon in the list of reliance nor appended with the plaint. The respondents/plaintiffs have failed to show any good cause for their failure to append the document with the plaint.
8. It is mentioned in Para No,5 of the impugned order that the documents, intended to be produced by the respondents/plaintiffs, were issued before filing the suits and thus when, the documents were already available with the respondents/plaintiffs, and they failed to append with the suits and to place reliance on the same and also could not show any good cause for the non-production therefore, there was no justification for allowing them to produce the same. Resultantly, while accepting both the writ petitions, impugned orders dated 4-10-2010 passed in two separate Civil Revisions No,04-ADJ-2010 and 05-ADJ-2010 by Additional District Judge, Depalpur are hereby set aside.