Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Parkash vs Gopal Bansal on 28 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)115PLR408
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 25.7.1996 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Karnal, who allowed the application of Shree Gopal Bansal under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure by which plaintiff-respondent was allowed to prove the affidavit dated 19.5.1988 allegedly executed by Ved Parkash, present petitioner, who is a defendant in the trial Court.
2. The facts as gathered by this Court from the grounds of revision are that plaintiff Shri Shree Gopal Bansal filed a suit for declaration that vide registered safe deed dated 16.5.1988, the defendant-petitioner had sold to him the land measuring 16 biswas and not 6 biswas as mentioned in the sale deed and this mistake may be rectified and defendant-petitioner is liable to sell the land measuring 16 biswas instead of 6 biswas.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the plaintiff closed evidence and when the defendant-petitioner entered into the witness box as D.W.3 on 11.9.1995, he did not deny specifically the contents of the affidavit dated 19.5.1988 necessitating the plaintiff to file an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. for allowing him to prove the affidavit dated 19.5.1988 on the plea that it was executed by the petitioner voluntarily and it was got scribed from Bhagwati Sarup Deed Writer of Karnal. If the plaintiff is permitted to prove the signature of the defendant, then he will be able to produce Hand-writing expert also to prove the signatures of defendant-petitioner on the affidavit by the defendant in the trial Court which allowed the application mainly on the ground that while appearing as D.W.3 on 11.9.1995, the contents of the affidavit were put to the defendant, but he could not deny specifically the execution of it and it was observed by the trial Court that in its considered opinion, the defendant was not likely to prejudice in any manner, if the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff is allowed because the defendant can also be compensated with costs. Moreover, the production of said affidavit would help the Court in determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Finally, the prayer of the plaintiff was allowed vide impugned orders dated 25.7.1995 subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. It may also be mentioned that the defendant-petitioner also filed one application under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. dated 8.3.1996 seeking permission to produce the certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.11.1995 which was also allowed vide the said order dated 25.7.1996.
4. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 25.7.1996 so far as it allows the plaintiff to prove the affidavit dated 19.5,1988.
5. Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. lays down that where a party satisfies the Court that after the exercise of due diligence any evidence was not within the 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. The controversy in the present case revolves as to how much area was purchased by the plaintiff Shri Shree Gopal Bansal from the defendant. As per the case of the plaintiff, the area purchased was 16 biswas and wrongly mentioned as 6 biswas in the sale deed which was registered on 24.11.1995. What was the real import of the sale deed, if any party to the sale deed has tried to express the same by way of additional affidavit containing the admission of that party, the opposite party can certainly rely upon it. It is one thing whether such evidence can vary the terms of the sale deed or not, but whether the document is relevant or not is a separate issue. The defendant could not deny specifically the execution of the affidavit dated 19.5.1988 while appearing as D.W.3 on 11.9.1995. In these circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent was justified in asking the Court to allow him to prove the document which could be shown to the defendant-petitioner during the course of cross-examination. The impugned order specifically states that the production of the said affidavit would help the Court in determining the real question in the controversy. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the affidavit dated 19.5.1988 was in possession of the plaintiff and he was to prove this affidavit while leading evidence in affirmative still nothing debars the Courts from taking on records such evidence which in his opinion can help it for the proper adjudication of the controversy. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or error of jurisdiction on the part of the trial Court and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) did not commit any wrong in allowing the prayer of the plaintiff-respondent to prove the execution of the affidavit dated 19.5.1988.
6. In this view of the matter, I do not see any merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.