KARANVEER SINGH Vs. DHARAMVEER SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff impugning the order of the trial court dated 6th May, 2013 by which the trial court has rejected an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to lead additional evidence and also for cross examining the witness of the other side.

(2.) Paras 2 and 4 of the impugned judgment are relevant and the same read as under:-

(3.) In my opinion, the ground given of a new counsel having been engaged and therefore new evidence is required to be led because according to the new counsel certain evidence has been left out, if is permitted, then each time when a counsel would be changed, the new counsel will feel that he being more competent than the earlier counsel who has not done his job and therefore courts will be bound to allow additional evidence to be led. Even for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that earlier counsel was less competent and did not lead evidence, the fact of the matter is that it is the petitioner/plaintiff in this case who himself closed his evidence not only in affirmative but also in rebuttal/rejoinder. Evidence of the defendant was thereafter led and closed. The case was thereafter fixed for final arguments. Therefore, at the stage of final arguments, the case cannot be thrown back and again the case cannot be fixed at the stage of evidence because if this is allowed then there would be no end to the trial of a case. Of course, the CPC is a handmaid of justice but that does not entitle a petitioner/plaintiff who has had more than sufficient opportunities to lead evidence, in affirmative and rebuttal and thereafter has closed his evidence and the case is at the stage of final arguments, to claim further opportunities to lead evidence to fill up the lacuna left behind at the time of leading evidence and also failing to cross-examine the witness. Vested rights thus created in favour of the defendant hence cannot be rightly disturbed.