D C THAKUR Vs. SHYAM SUNDER CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 05.9.2014 rejecting an application of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead further evidence. The subject suit is a suit for specific performance for a prospective industrial plot of 400 sq. yds. to be allotted to the respondent/defendant. The petitioner/plaintiff relies upon the two documents dated 28.12.1996 and 30.12.1996 to allege that the petitioner has an agreement to sell of the suit property with the respondent/defendant. The petitioner I may note is an Advocate.

(2.) A reading of the impugned order shows that the petitioner/plaintiff has had more than enough opportunities to lead his evidence, led his evidence and thereafter his evidence was closed. The respondent/defendant thereafter also commenced his evidence. It is at that stage that the subject application was filed for leading evidence only on the ground that the earlier Advocate was "incompetent", though this specific expression is not used.

(3.) In my opinion, self-serving bald averments making the allegation against the earlier Advocate that the earlier Advocate did not know the law, and therefore he did not lead the evidence, is no reason in the eyes of law to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to lead additional evidence after the evidence has already been completed over many dates of hearing. Also the petitioner/plaintiff himself being an Advocate, though practicing in the income-tax side, cannot say that he is not aware of the basic procedures required in law for proof of various aspects.