JOEFFREY SALES Vs. JOAO JOSE FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri R. B. De Sa advocate for the petitioners. This is a revision application against the Order dated 3rd August, 1998 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for allowing the petitioners to examine their witnesses after the closing of the case of the plaintiffs as well as of the defendants in the suit. The only ground on which the application was filed was that the earlier lawyer who was representing the plaintiffs did not inform the plaintiffs before closing the evidence of the plaintiffs and had never informed the plaintiffs to bring any of the witnesses to be examined in the Court.

(2.) SHRI R. B. De Sa, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application ignoring the fact that an application to examine the witnesses can be certainly made at any stage of the suit. In fact the trial Court had not passed judgment in the matter and the application was filed before such judgment was delivered; being so, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application merely on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed long time back. In support of his contention he sought to rely upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of (Wasudeo Sonone and another v. Jagannath Ramlalji Jugele), reported in A. I. R. 1986 Bombay 43 and another decisions in the matter of (Suresh Kumar v. Baldev Raj), reported in A. I. R. 1984 Delhi 439, (Chandgi v. Mehar Chand and others), reported in A. I. R. 1998 Punjab and Haryana 197 and (Mani Dhal v. Padma Charan Dhal and others), reported in A. I. R. 1984 Orissa 169.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY an application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence can be filed at any stage of the suit in terms of Order XVIII, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Delhi High Court as well as this Court while interpreting the expression at any stage has held that the said expression includes any stage prior to the pronouncement of the judgment. Nonetheless it is in the realm of the discretion of the Court, which can be exercised even after evidence of the parties has concluded. Of course, it must be exercised judicially and on well accepted judicial principles and not arbitrarily or capriciously.