Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swaran Singh vs Bhagwan Singh And Ors. on 6 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)123PLR789
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa dated 12.9.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17-A, Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a civil suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the land in question. The petitioner was stated to be having nothing to do with the said land and that he had never exchanged with any land of the petitioner. The alleged exchange and the mutation sanctioned was stated to be incorrect and not binding on the respondents. The said suit was contested by the petitioner who filed the written statement. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was closed on 17.12.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner also produced and closed the evidence on 24.3.1998. On 31.3.1998 the respondent filed an application for production of evidence in rebuttal with the averments that onus of certain issues was on the respondents. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court but in revision the said order was set aside. The evidence in rebuttal was recorded.
3. The petitioner submitted an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A, Code of Civil Procedure for additional evidence to produce the evidence of Patwari Halqa in order to produce and prove the Rapat Roznamcha. It was asserted that this evidence was necessary to rebut the evidence of the respondents-plaintiff.
4. The learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that with due diligence such evidence could be produced on an earlier occasion. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.
5. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on the decision in of this Court in the case of Jarnail Singh and Ors. v. Prem Raj and Ors., (1999-1)121 P.LR. 404. In the said case additional evidence was allowed keeping in view the peculiar facts of the cited decision. Certain pronotes and receipts were produced which contained the signatures of the deceased. Certain orders were produced in rebuttal evidence and, therefore, it was held that opposite party must be given a chance under Order 18, Rule 17-A Code of Civil Procedure.
6. This is not the position in the present case. Herein the respondent-plaintiff had a right to lead the evidence in rebuttal. There is no right with the petitioner to lead evidence rebutting the rebuttal evidence. In fact with due diligence the petitioner could have produced the said evidence on an earlier occasion. Order 18, Rule 17-A can only be pressed into service if after due diligence, the said person could not produce the evidence or that the said evidence was not within his knowledge when he was leading evidence. This is not so in the present case. In these circumstances, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application for additional evidence.
7. For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.