Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhim Raj And Ors. vs Jai Bhagwan And Ors. on 8 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)125PLR208
Author: V.M. Jain
Bench: V.M. Jain
ORDER V.M. Jain, J.
1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 5.1.1993 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of defendant No.1 for production of additional evidence.
2. The facts which are necessary for the decision of the present revision petition are that Jai Bhagwan plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against defendant No.1 Bhim Raj and other defendants. During pendency of the suit after the plaintiff had led evidence, the defendants were allowed opportunity to produce evidence. Since the defendants failed to examine their entire evidence inspite of various opportunities, the remaining evidence of the defendants was closed by the Court order on 18.12.1992 and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence and arguments. At that stage defendant No.1 filed the present application for permission to produce additional evidence. The said application was contested by the plaintiff by filing the written reply. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides and perusing the record dismissed the application of defendant No.1 vide order dated 5.1.1993. It is against this order of the learned trial Court that Bhim Raj defendant No.1 has filed the present revision petition. During the pendency of this petition Bhim Raj petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is a fit case where the petitioner should have been allowed to produce the additional evidence. Reliance was placed on Smt. Swaran Kanta v. Brij Kumar Dhir and Ors., (1991-2)100 P.L.R. 73. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has submitted that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A, CPC and no case is made out for allowing the petitioner to produce additional evidence and the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for permission to produce additional evidence. Reliance was placed on Sukhdev Singh v. Gurmukh Singh, (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 146.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I find no merit in the present revision petition. Admittedly, the remaining evidence of the defendants was closed by the Court order on 18.12.1992 as the defendants had failed to produce their remaining evidence inspite of several opportunities. Immediately thereafter, defendant No.1 filed the present application for permission to produce the additional evidence. In the said application, it was alleged that the applicant came to know about the documents in question only after 18.12.1992 when his evidence was closed by the Court and as such he may be allowed to produce additional evidence. In the written reply filed by the plaintiff, it was categorically stated that the handwriting expert in his statement in Court had stated that he wanted to compare the dispute thumb impression of Chhoto with the alleged thumb impression on the alleged document which defendant No.1 now wanted to produce by way of additional evidence. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that defendant No.1 came to know abut the existence of those documents only after the remaining evidence of the defendant was closed on 18.12.1992.
6. In Sukhdev Singh's case (supra) also various opportunities were given to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence and finally the plaintiffs evidence was closed by the Court order by passing a speaking order. Subsequently, the plaintiff wanted to produce additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A, C.P.C. and the learned trial Court after hearing both sides had allowed the said application of the plaintiff. This order was challenged by the defendant by way of a civil revision. This Court after considering the entire matter and considering that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by Court order by passing a speaking order, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to adduce additional evidence after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by the Court order especially when the said order passed by the trial Court was not challenged by the plaintiff and had become final. Reliance had been placed on the law laid down by this Court in the case reported as Chand Singh v. Narain Singh, 1990(1) L.J.R. 719.
7. In the present case as well, the evidence of the defendants was closed by the court order and this order was not challenged by the defendants by way of revision or otherwise and the said order has become final. Thereafter the defendants could not be allowed to produce same evidence by way of additional evidence without bringing their case strictly within the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A, CPC. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the defendants could not produce their evidence inspite of exercise of due diligence. Under these circumstances, the petitioner would not entitled to produce the additional evidence at this stage.
8. The authorities Smt. Swaran Kanta v. Brij Kumar,4 (1991-2)100 P.L.R. 73 and Ram Dev and Anr. v. Satbir Singh and Ors., (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 544 (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case in view of the law laid down in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra).
9. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
10. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 31.3.2000 for further proceedings in accordance with law. Since the case pertains to this year 1984. the trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within two month from the date of appearance before the trial Court.