JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 27.1.2003 passed in Suit No. 583 of 1995, Shiv Kumar Tripathi v. Abdul Rahman and Anr. by which Application 133 (C) moved by the defendant seeking permission to file one document i.e., the voter list in support of his contention, was rejected on the ground that the suit was fixed for final hearing of the argument and the stage for filing the document has already gone long back. The learned trial court has also referred in the impugned order that the Order XVIII, Rule 17 (A) has been deleted by Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1999 ( Act No. 46 of 1999) and the validity of this Amending Act with regard to the deletion of Order XVIII, Rule 17 (A) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 189. It is against this order that the present revision has been preferred.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist at the admission stage.
3. It appears that the case was fixed for argument when the defendant moved an application for filing one document. Order XVIII, Rule 17 (A) which was existing prior to the amendment of the C.P.C. Amending Act, 1999, is as follows :
"17 (A) Production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence.--Where a party satisfies the Court that, after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was leading his evidence, the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just."
4. The aforesaid provision has been deleted. Now there is a specific provision indicating the stage for filing the documentary evidence. Order XVIII, Rule 2 is as follows :
"Rule 2 (1) Statement and production of evidence.--(1) On the day fixed for hearing of the suit or on any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove.
(2) The other party beginning may then reply generally on the whole case.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage."
5. In the aforesaid case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the remedy, if any, that was available to a litigant with regard to adducing the additional evidence prior to 1976, would be available now and no more. The remedy available is Order XVIII, Rule 2 as cited above.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has referred Naind Singh, AIR 1970 SC 997, in which it was held that inherent jurisdiction of the Court must be exercised subject to the Rule that if the rule does contain specific provisions which would meet the necessities of the case, such provision should be followed and inherent jurisdiction should not be invoked.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also referred to other decision in Padam Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1971 SC 218 and Century Flour Mills v. S. Suppiah. AIR 1975 Mad 270 (FB), in order to show that application must have been allowed under Section 115, C.P.C. But in my opinion these two decisions are of no help to the revisionist.
8. Section 115 of the C.P.C. has been amended by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 1999 and a proviso had been added which is as follows :
Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.
9. In view of the aforesaid proviso, the instant revision is not maintainable under Section 115, C.P.C., therefore, the revision is dismissed at the admission stage.