Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh And Ors. vs Prem Raj And Ors. on 17 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1999)121PLR404
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The challenge in this revision is to the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri dated 27.10.1998. Vide the impugned order the learned trial Court dismissed an application filed by applicant for allowing additional evidence.
2. In this case the respondents were served but nobody appeared on their behalf inspite of the fact that the case was called out three times. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were stated to be proforma respondents, as such, their service was dispensed with at the risk of the petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order is that Ex.P-8 to P-10 which are the copies of the records of Panchayat and bear signature of the deceased, were produced and proved in rebuttal by the plaintiff after the defendant had closed his evidence, as such, defendant had got no opportunity, to meet the said documents and led any evidence in that regard. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, has taken the petitioners by surprise.
3. Ex. P-1 and P-2 were the pronotes and receipts on the basis of which the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. They contain the signatures of the deceased and to establish this fact probably the plaintiff produced Ex.P-8 and P10 in rebuttal evidence and proved them during that time. It has also been men- tioned in the impugned order that Ex.P-8 In P-10 have been proved by the plaintiff in rebuttal evidence. If that be so, certainly the applicant would be entitled to a chance to rebut the same by leading expert evidence to show that Ex.P-8 to P-10 do not contain the signature as are allegedly contained on Ex.P-1 and P-2. It is the question of applying due diligence in relation to Ex.P-8 to P-10 because they were produced only at the rebuttal stage. In these circumstances, it will not be proper for the Court to come to a conclusion that the applicant-petitioner has acted negligently and has not pursued his remedy in accordance with.
4. It is a settled rule of law that parties must produce their documents alongwith pleadings or in any case, immediately prior and after the framing of issues. Once the evidence commences, the parties cannot go on producing documents on record without specific order of the Court. As already noted, the documents were proved in rebuttal evidence, as such I find no reason why the application of the applicant should have been dismissed by the learned trial Court for the reason that applicant has not acted diligently. Keeping in view the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A and in view of the principle settled in the judgment of this Court titled as Banwari v. Nagina, (1998-1) 118 P.L.R. 616 this revision is accepted. The impugned order dated 27.10.1998 is hereby set aside. The application for additional evidence filed by the defendant-applicant is allowed. The defendant shall produce his entire evidence on the next date which is fixed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court may proceed with the case in accordance with law.
5. The petition is accordingly allowed.