VED PARKASH Vs. RAJ RANI SINGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of the plaintiffs under Order 18, Rule 17A, C.P.C. for production of additional evidence.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Ved Parkash etc., plaintiffs , had filed a suit for possession by final partition against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed application under Order 18, Rule 17A, C.P.C. for permission to lead additional evidence with regard to dissolution deed dated 20.11.1992 in respect of the defendant-firm M/s. Singla Trading Company alleging therein that M/s Singla Trading Company had ceased to exist after dissolution deed dated 20.11.1992 and this fact regarding dissolution was not in the knowledge of the plaintiffs while the defendants had suppressed this fact and that the dissolution deed had now come to the notice of the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs wanted to produce additional evidence in this regard. The said application of the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants alleging therein that the firm M/s. Singla Trading Company was still in existence and that business was still being carried on under the name of M/s. Singla Trading Company in the premises in question and that no case was made out to allow the plaintiffs to produce additional evidence at this stage, when the case had reached at final stage. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides, vide order dated 31.3.1999, dismissed the application of the plaintiffs. It is against this order of the trial Court that the plaintiffs filed the present revision petition. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, inspite of service being complete.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioners submitted before me that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession through final partition of the building in question against the defendants and that the defendants in the written statement had taken the plea that the suit property was in possession of M/s Singla Trading Company as tenant and as such no partition by physical delivery of possession was possible. It was submitted that now the plaintiffs have come in possession of the dissolution deed dated 20.11.1992 vide which the partners of M/s Singla Trading Company had dissolved the said partnership firm and that the plaintiffs wanted to produce the said dissolution deed by way of additional evidence. It was submitted that this evidence was not in the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time when the plaintiffs has produced their evidence and for that reason this evidence could not be produced earlier.