S N BHANDARI Vs. J N BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 13th March 2007 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby he dismissed an application of the defendant (the petitioner herein) under Section 151 of CPC for leading additional evidence.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that one of the issues framed in the suit was as under: "whether the plaintiff has wrongly described the suit property as Khasra no. 21/23/2 instead of 21/23/1 in the plaint as well as in the site plan as alleged in para 4 of the written statement""

(3.) AFTER the conclusion of evidence by both parties when the matter was fixed at the stage of arguments, the petitioner noticed a Sign Board on the property inscribed thereon "this property belonged to Suresh Yadavji". The petitioner made inquiries from Mr. Suresh Yadav and came to know that Smt. Satya vati and Mr. Madhu Bala had sold the plot to the children and nephew of Mr. Suresh Yadav. However, the petitioner could not get a copy of the sale deed. He, therefore, wanted to examine Mr. Suresh Yadav, Smt. Satya Vati and Smt. Madhu bala along with title documents of the plot in question and, therefore moved an application under Section 151 CPC for summoning these witnesses. The application was opposed by the respondent saying that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A cpc regarding additional evidence had been deleted by the Parliament by an amendment in the CPC in the year 1999. There was no issue before the Court below qua title of the property but the suit filed by the plaintiff was for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act. The suit for partition qua the property bearing Khasra No. 21/23/1 was already pending in the Court of ms. Sunita Birbal, ADJ. If the petitioner wanted to file additional evidence regarding title, he should have produced the same in that suit. The application made in this case was misconceived and moved only to delay the matter and to side-track the issues.