080-NLR-NLR-V-02-ALLIS-v.-BABUNHAMY-et-al.pdf
( 198 )
1896.July 17.
ALLIS v. BABUNHAMY et cd.
■ D. C., Oalle, 3,045.
Civil Procedure Code, as. 51 and 54—Document “ relied- on '-’—Its admis-sion in' evidence.
Where in an action to be declared entitled to certain land the
plaintiff omitted to enter his title deed in a list of documents
annexed to the plaint, but filed it with his plaint, held, that the
defendant was in no way prejudiced by the 'omissioD, and that the
District Judge should have exercised the discretion given to him
by section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code in the plaintiff’s favour,
and admitted the deed in evidence.
<
t j THE facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment.
Asserappa, for appellant.
17th July, 1896. Lawrie, J.—
The learned District Judge has dismissed the action on a technicaland; I think, an unreasonable ground.
The plaintiff claims to be owner of a land. He filed his title deedwith his plaint. He did not enter it in a list annexed to the plaint.When the first witness was under examination he proposed to pro-duce this title deed. The production was objected to, and thelearned District Judge refused to exercise the discretion given tohim by the 54th section. The defendant was in no way prejudicedby the omission to include this title deed in a list.
The plaintiff gave fuller notice of the title deed than he*'wasobliged to give. All he need have done was to state its number anddate in a list, and to produce it at the trial. He filed his title deedwith the plaint, so giving the defendant fuller notice and informationthan the law required.
I would set aside, and would'send the action back for trial in duecourse.
Withers, J., agreed.