JUDGEMENT K C Sood, J.: The question raised in this petition is whether this Court, in original side, has the powers to permit the Plaintiff, who has closed its evidence, to lead additional evidence in the absence of any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition may be noticed: Plaintiff-H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" has laid a suit against the defendants for the recovery of rupees 33, 57, 578.65 paisa with future interest. The defendant, No.1, hereinafter referred to as "the Company" is Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. Defendants No.2 and 3 are the Directors of the Company. 3. One of the functions of the corporation is to provide financial assistance to the entrepreneurs for setting up of Industrial units in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Defendant No.1 applied for the grant of term loan of rupees 26 lakhs and sought financial assistance of rupees 2.3 lakhs for setting up their unit. The loan of rupees 26 lakhs for sanctioned in favour of the Defendant Company by the Plaintiff Corporation on December 20, 1983 and September 1, 1984 and another amount of rupees 2.3 lakhs was advanced from March 6, 1984 to April 10, 1984 in instalments. The loan was to be repaid with interest at 13.5% per annum with rebate of 10% for repayment of schedule. The defendant Company defaulted in the payment of suit amount. It is in this background that the present suit is laid. 4. The Plaintiff Corporation led evidence. Defendants did not lead any evidence. During the course of the arguments it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondents that a sum of rupees 7,79,856/- were charged to the account of the defendants which amount, is allegedly paid by the plaintiff Corporation to the HP. Housing Board. Mr. Kanwar, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants contended that the amount due, if any, could only be recovered by the Housing Board from the defendants and it was not given to the Plaintiff Corporation to charge this amount to the account of the defendant. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant would contend that this amount was paid by the Plaintiff Corporation on the basis of a letter and terms of the lease deed executed by the defendants with the Housing Board. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant would contend that this amount was paid by the Plaintiff Corporation on the basis of a letter and terms of the lease deed executed by the defendants with the Housing Board. This letter which is dated march 6, 1985 was, according to the Plaintiff Corporation, was written by the Managing Director of the defendant Company creating equitable mortgage in respect of the plot on which the industrial unit is located under which he had undertaken to pay the dues of the H.P. Housing Board, i.e. premium rent unearned increase etc., as may be demanded by the H.P. Housing Board. Correspondence was also exchanged between the plaintiff/applicant and the H.P. Housing Board in this behalf. However, such correspondence relied upon by the Plaintiff Corporation was not proved or produced during the course of evidence led by the Plaintiff Corporation. 5. The Plaintiff Corporation has filed the present petition for permission to lead additional evidence so as to prove this correspondence. In para 6 of the petition it is stated that by inadvertent omission/mistake, the said documents were not filed with the civil suit nor any evidence was led on this question, though one of the witnesses Mr. M.K. Chaudhuri, Financial Adviser, admitted in cross-examination that a sum of rupees 7.80 lacs were approximately charged to the account of the defendants on account of unearned increase, premium and unpaid rent to the H.P. Housing Board by the Plaintiff. 6. It is in the background, noticed above, that the Plaintiff Corporation has filed this petition for permission to lead additional evidence. No reply has been filed by the defendants company. 7. Mr. Kuldip Singh learned Senior Counsel, submitted that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for permitting a plaintiff to lead additional evidence though such provision existed in terms of order 18 Rule 17-A till July 1, 2002 from which date rule 17-A of Order 18 was omitted by the C.P.C. (Amendment Act) 1999. Thus prior to the omission of Rule 17-A of Order 18, a party was permitted to lead additional evidence if such evidence could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence of if the evidence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time of leading its evidence. Thus prior to the omission of Rule 17-A of Order 18, a party was permitted to lead additional evidence if such evidence could not be produced despite exercise of due diligence of if the evidence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time of leading its evidence. 8.The question thus arise whether this Court is bereft of the jurisdiction and power to permit a party to lead additional evidence if a case is made out for permitting a party to lead such additional evidence in the interest of justice. 9. It is true that provisions of Rule 17-A of Order 18 were omitted and there is no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence in a suit, though such power exists at appellate stage. 10. The Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N. v. Union of India (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49, observed that though presently there is no provision similar to rule 17-A to Order 18 which provided an opportunity to a party to adduce additional evidence under the circumstances mentioned in that rule and this provision was inserted in the year 1976 and the effect of deletion of this provision in 2002 is merely to restore status quo ante, i.e. the position which existed prior to the insertion of Rule 17-A in 1976. Therefore, the remedy which was available to a litigant with regard to the adducing of additional evidence prior to 1976 would be available. 11.lt may be noticed that rule 2 (4) of Order 18 which had been inserted by Act No. 104 of 1976 was also omitted by Amendment Act, 1999 under such rule, the Court could direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. Therefore, the effect of the deletion, as ruled by the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344 is that law that was prevalent prior to 1976 Amendment Act would govern the question of additional evidence. Now even prior to the insertion of Order 18 Rule 2 (4), permission to lead additiona1 evidence would be granted by the Court in its discretion and the provision was inserted in 1976 only by way of caution. Now even prior to the insertion of Order 18 Rule 2 (4), permission to lead additiona1 evidence would be granted by the Court in its discretion and the provision was inserted in 1976 only by way of caution. The Apex Court ruled: "The omission of Order 18 Rule 2 (4) by the 1999 amendment does not take away the Courts inherent power to call for any witness at any stage either suo motu or on the prayer of a party invoking the inherent powers of the Court." 12. This apart, the Court has the inherent jurisdiction in such cases under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The limitation for the exercise of such jurisdiction is that such powers of the Court cannot over-ride the express provision of law or in other words, if there is a provision in the Code to deal with a particular matter which either expressly or by necessary implication exhaust scope of the inherent powers of the Court, then inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised. 13. Admittedly there is no provision in the Code at present to permit a party to lead additional evidence. Therefore, as observed by the Apex Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association, inherent powers can be exercised to permit a party to lead additional evidence after a party satisfied the court that despite exercise of due diligence, the evidence could not be produced at the time the party was leading evidence on such terms as may be just. 14. Having concluded that the Courts are not bereft of the powers to permit a party to lead additional evidence, in the given circumstances, the next question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, plaintiff should be permitted to lead additional evidence. 15. It may be noticed that the defendant has not filed any reply and thus not opposed this petition of the plaintiff for permission to lead additional evidence so far the reasons for such permission are concerned. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that though the Financial Adviser has stated that rupees 7.80. Approximately was charged to the account of the defendants on account of unearned increase, premium and unpaid rent which was paid by the plaintiff Corporation to the Housing Board on behalf of the defendants. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that though the Financial Adviser has stated that rupees 7.80. Approximately was charged to the account of the defendants on account of unearned increase, premium and unpaid rent which was paid by the plaintiff Corporation to the Housing Board on behalf of the defendants. No evidence to the contrary is led by the defendants to show that the plaintiff was not entitled to charge this amount to the accounts of the defendants. It is only to make the position clear, it is necessary, that correspondence and the documents which show that the plaintiff was authorized to pay this amount to the H.P. Housing Board and charge it to the account of the defendants is sought to be placed on record and proved. 17. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case in its entirety, I allow the petition and permit the plaintiff Corporation to place on record the documents enclosed with this petition and prove the same by leading appropriate evidence. Permission is subject to payment of rupees 5000/- as cost. The cost, it is stated, may be deposited with the Advocate Welfare Fund. Be so deposited with the within four weeks from today. The evidence as prayed for by the plaintiff shall be led on deposit of the cost by the plaintiff Corporation on the date to be fixed by the Registrar (Vigilance).