Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 614 (PNJ)

Sarovar Singh v. Budh Singh

2000-05-31

V.M.JAIN

body2000
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. (Oral) - This is a revision petition against the order dated 4.2.1998 passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Budh Singh, plaintiff, had filed a suit for injunction against the defendants. The suit was contested by the defendants. Issues were framed. The plaintiff had led his evidence. When the case was at the stage of defendants evidence, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. for direction to the defendants to produce certain sale deeds. That application was contested by the defendants. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.12.1997 dismissed the said application of the plaintiff, on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff had already been closed and as such he could not be allowed to avail the remedy of Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. No appeal or revision was filed against the said order dated 16.12.1997. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. for permission to produce certain sale deeds by way of additional evidence. The said application of the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. was allowed by the trial Court on 6.1.1998 and he was given opportunity to prove the execution of the said sale deeds by way of additional evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff again filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. for direction to the defendants to produce the original sale deeds in the Court. This application again was contested by the defendants. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Court vide order dated 4.2.1998 allowed the said application of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to produce the sale deeds in their possession. Aggrieved against this order of the trial Court, the defendants have filed the present revision petition. 3. Notice of motion was issued. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the previous application under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.12.1997, no case is made out for allowing the second application of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. for the same relief. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the previous application under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.12.1997, no case is made out for allowing the second application of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. for the same relief. Reliance has been placed on Kaila Devi v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) Recent Civil Reports 522. 5. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, I find no merit in the present revision petition. Admittedly, the earlier application under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.12.1997, on technical ground that the evidence of the plaintiff in the affirmative was already over and he could not be allowed to take recourse to the provisions of Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. Subsequently, the circumstances changed, inasmuch as the plaintiff was allowed to produce additional evidence vide order dated 6.1.1998 with regard to the execution of various sale deeds in favour of the defendants. It was thereafter, after the circumstances had changed, the plaintiff again filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. for a direction to the defendants to produce the sale deeds in their possession in the Court. Since the plaintiff had been given opportunity to produce additional evidence, the learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the said application of the plaintiff vide order dated 4.2.1998 and directed the defendants to produce the sale deeds in their possession. In my opinion, no execution can be taken to the order dated 4.2.1998 passed by the trial Court, in view of the changed circumstances. Kaila Devis case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the reported case, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. This was rejected by this Court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application under Section 151 C.P.C. This application was just replica of the earlier application filed by the petitioner. It was under those circumstances, it was held by this Court that the subsequent application would be hit by the principle of res judicata and a party cannot be permitted to agitate and re-agitate one and the same issue by filing application after application for the same relief. It was under those circumstances, it was held by this Court that the subsequent application would be hit by the principle of res judicata and a party cannot be permitted to agitate and re-agitate one and the same issue by filing application after application for the same relief. However, the law laid down in this authority would have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the present case the application has been allowed under the changed circumstances. In my opinion, the learned trial Court was perfectly within its jurisdiction in allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. and no fault could be found with the same. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.