Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1166 (PNJ)

Chattar Singh v. Mehar Singh

2001-10-19

JASBIR SINGH

body2001
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - The present revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court lated 10.8.1992 vide which applications of Plaintiff- respondent to lead additional evidence were allowed. By moving two applications before the trial Court, the respondent prayed that he be allowed to bring on record a copy of the application moved by the petitioner themselves for partition of the land in dispute. In the second application, it was prayed that the earlier Jamabandi brought on record as Ex. P-6 is not complete document and in the interest of justice, he be allowed to bring on record a complete copy of the same, Jamabandi. 2. Shri Arvind Bansal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the application for bringing on record additional evidence has been allowed at a belated stage and also that the case of the respondent do not fall within the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure. He prayed that the revision petition be allowed and the order under challenge be set aside. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels that the order under challenge is perfectly justified and the trial Court has given sufficient reason for allowing the applications of the respondent to bring on record two documents by way of additional evidence. The contention of Shri Bansal that the case was at the fag end and as such, these applications were required to be dismissed, is not tenable. The evidence which otherwise is material can not be shut only due to some delay in moving the application on the part of the respondent. The language of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code does not define the stage at which such an application can be moved. It only says that where party after due diligence was not able to produce evidence the same can be produced at a later stage subject to such terms and conditions as the court may consider just and proper. This view is fully supported by the judgment of this court in Hazara Singh and another v. Bachan Singh and other, 1998 PLJ 163. The argument of Shri Bansal that the case does not fall within the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A is also mis-conceived. The trial Court has clearly opined that a complete copy of the jamabandi Ex. This view is fully supported by the judgment of this court in Hazara Singh and another v. Bachan Singh and other, 1998 PLJ 163. The argument of Shri Bansal that the case does not fall within the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A is also mis-conceived. The trial Court has clearly opined that a complete copy of the jamabandi Ex. P-6 and the copy of the application which was moved by the petitioner for partition of the land are the documents which are necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the mater under challenge and the evidence sought to be produced goes to the root of the case. In view of this no interference can be made in the order passed. Otherwise also, both the documents are such that there is no chance of any fabrication of these documents, as such, by allowing these documents to be placed on record, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Shri Arvind Bansal lastly contended that in view of the amendment in Section 15 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act (applicable to Haryana) virtually the suit has become redundant and this revision petition be allowed keeping in view the said fact. He has placed his reliance on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder and another v. Ram Kumar and another, Judgments Today 2001(6) SC 94 to support his contention. Be that as it may, this aspect can not be looked into at this stage, however, the trial Court is advised to see the effect of the above said amendment and judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court before proceedings further in the pending suit. 4. In view of the facts stated above, the revision petition is dismissed and no order as to costs. Since at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 1.9.1992, further proceedings were stayed, the trial Court is directed to proceed further with the suit and decide the same expeditiously. Petition dismissed.