BHIM RAJ Vs. JAI BHAGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 5.1.1993 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of defendant No. 1 for production of additional evidence.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the decision of the present revision petition are that Jai Bhagwan plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against defendant No. 1 Bhim Raj and other defendants. During pendency of the suit, after the plaintiff and led evidence, the defendants were allowed opportunity to produce evidence. Since the defendants failed to examine their entire evidence inspite of various opportunities, the remaining evidence of the defendants was closed by the Court order on 18.12.1992 and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence and arguments. At that stage defendant No. 1 filed the present application for permission to produce additional evidence. The said application was contested by the plaintiff by filing the written reply. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides and perusing the record dismissed the application of defendant No. 1 vide order dated 5.1.1993. It is against this order of the learned trial Court that Bhim Raj defendant No. 1 has filed the present revision petition. During the pendency of this petition Bhim Raj petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, I find no merit in the present revision petition. Admittedly, the remaining evidence of the defendants was closed by the Court order on 18.12.1992 as the defendants had failed to produce their remaining evidence inspite of several opportunities. Immediately thereafter, defendant No. 1 filed the present application for permission to produce the additional evidence. In the said application, it was alleged that the applicant came to know about the documents in question only after 18.12.1992 when his evidence was closed by the Court and as such he may be allowed to produce additional evidence. In the written reply filed by the plaintiff, it was categorically stated that the handwriting expert in his statement in Court had stated the he wanted to compare the disputed thumb impression of Chhoto with the alleged thumb impression on the alleged document which defendant No. 1 now wanted to produce by way of additional evidence. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that defendant No. 1 came to know about the existence of those documents only after the remaining evidence of the defendant was closed on 18.12.1992.