Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar vs Prem Lata And Ors. on 7 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)117PLR291
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. Plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration as also for joint possession inter-alia on the ground that he has a right in the property left by his common ancestor Sh. Shiv Charan. It was further claimed that the property in the hands of Arjan Singh, father of the petitioner, was ancestral/HUF/coparcenery property and that Arjan Singh had no right to suffer a consent decree in favour of Smt. Prem Lata, Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar. Plaintiff concluded his evidence on 18.7.1991 and the defendants thereafter concluded their evidence on 9.12.1991. The case was thereafter listed for arguments and at that stage in the year 1991 itself plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce additional evidence in the shape of Jamabandi for the year 1924 to 1937 along with Khatoni istemal, Naqsha Haqdar-war, Khatoni Pamayish and Mutation of inheritence to the estate of Shiv Charan, his grand father. This application was conr tested by the defendants-respondents and the learned trial court by order dated 11.1.1992 dismissed the application. Hence this revision at the instance of the plaintiff.
2. It may be noticed at this stage that the parties to the suit are members of the same family. Plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of defendant No.2, Arjan Singh, whereas Smt. Prem Lata, defendant No.1 is the wife of Arjan Singh. Shiv Charan is the father of Arjan Singh and grand father of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. It seems that Arjan Singh suffered a decree in favour of his two sons Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, who are defendants in the suit based on a family settlement. This decree has perhaps given rise to this litigation as is apparent from the claim made in the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are very old and were relied upon by the plaintiff during the course of evidence, but due to inadvertence these documents could not be produced on record and these documents will prove that the property in dispute is ancestral qua the parties and was inherited by Arjan Singh from his father Shiv Charan and, therefore, he may be permitted to produce these documents by way of additional evidence and the trial court acted with material irregularity and illegality in declining the production of these documents. Learned counsel further submitted that the defendants could be compensated by payment of costs for the delayed production of the documents and these documents are otherwise required in order to pronounce satisfactory judgment and to do complete justice between the parties, especially when the parties are close relations. Learned counsel for the defendants respondents on the other hand submitted that the documents sought to be produced cannot be said to be such, which were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff and that he could not produce the same despite due diligence. Learned counsel further submitted that the only effort on the part of the plaintiff was to delay the disposal of the suit and to gain time.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to succeed. The plaintiff moved an application for production of additional evidence within a short span of closing his evidence though after the conclusion of the evidence by the defendants. Plaintiff relied upon these documents in the list of documents sought to be produced in the suit at the time of institution of the suit. He also moved an application for preparation of revenue excerpts for producing the said documents, but he could not produce the same perhaps due to inadvertence or for some other cause. The documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are the part of public record and there is no chance of their being fabricated. The documents are also more than 30 years old. Not only this these documents if permitted to be produced on record will enable the court to determine the real controversy between the parties and to pronounce a satisfactory judgment. There is no chance of these documents being fabricated by the plaintiff on a later date and the defendants for the late production of these documents could be compensated by payment of costs. It is true that these documents cannot be said to be such, which were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff or he could not produce the same after due diligence, but additional evidence in a given case can be permitted to be produced on account of any other sufficient cause or in order to determine the controversy between the parties more effectively and in order to render a satisfactory judgment. The trial court while declining the prayer of the plaintiff for the production of additional evidence only observed that he did not act fairly and has not exercised due diligence in concluding his evidence and the documents cannot be permitted to be produced by way of additional evidence. In my opinion the approach of the trial court in the facts of this case was too technical. Having regard to the fact that the documents sought to be produced will certainly help in deciding the actual controversy between the parties and that the documents form part of a public record and are beyond fabrication the production of such evidence should not have been declined on technicalities.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents placing reliance on Lakhbir Singh v. Kesar Kaur and Ors., 1984 Current Law Journal 599 submitted that- once the trial court has exercised its discretion in refusing the application for additional evidence, the High court should not interfere in revision especially when the application is made at the arguments stage and the evidence sought to be produced was in the knowledge of the plaintiff and the mere negligence of the counsel is no ground to interfere in revision.
6. The decision in Lakhbir Singh v. Kesar Kaur and Ors. (supra) is not of much assistance to the learned counsel for the respondents in the face of the judgment of this court Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (1987-2) 92 P.L.R. 393, wherein this court while dealing with the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure held that production of documents by way of additional evidence, which are not of doubtful authenticity is normally to be allowed and the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not be interpreted in a manner, which defeats the cause of justice.
7. In the wake of what has been noticed above, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), has a direct bearing to the facts of this case. The dispute is between the members of the same family and the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are not such, the authenticity of which is under doubt. Moreover these documents had been relied upon in the list of reliance by the plaintiff. Mere negligence on the part of the counsel or the plaintiff to produce the documents in evidence during the trial is not of such a nature, which could not be condoned, especially when the, respondents could be compensated by way of costs. In this view of the matter, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order under revision and grant the prayer made in the application for producing Jamabandi for the years 1924 to 1937, along with Khatoni istemal, Naksha Haqdar-war, Khatoni Pamayish and mutation of inheritence to the estate of Shiv Charan, subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. Parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the trial court on 3.9.1997 for further proceedings in accordance with law. Costs shall be paid to defendant No.2 or defendant No.1 through a crossed demand draft.