ABDUL RASHID ALIAS BUDHU Vs. SADDIQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) Plaintiff ? petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, whereby the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner, seeking permission to lead additional evidence or in the alternative rebuttal evidence to examine handwriting expert regarding the partition deed dated 09.10.1998, was rejected. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff ? petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that parties to the suit purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 09.10.1998 and they have mutually partitioned the suit property and that partition deed dated 09.10.1998 was also executed between the parties. Defendant in his written statement has denied the factum of partition and has pleaded that partition is a result of fraud and misrepresentation and the suit land is still joint between the parties. Written statement was filed way back in the year 2003 denying the factum of partition. Evidence of the parties was concluded in the year 2009 and thereafter, the case was listed for final arguments. At the time of final arguments, plaintiff has moved the present application seeking permission to lead evidence or in the alternative rebuttal evidence to examine the handwriting expert, which was declined by the learned Trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undisputedly, written statement was filed in the year 2003 denying the factum of partition. Undisputedly, evidence of the parties was concluded in the year 2009. Learned Trial Court has found that plaintiff could not prove as to why he has not produced the handwriting expert at the time when plaintiff was leading his evidence. No doubt, on the sufficient cause being shown by the parties seeking to lead additional evidence, permission can be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to lead additional evidence. However, if a party was not vigilant and is not able to show sufficient reason for not producing additional evidence at the time when evidence was being led, then merely by saying that due to oversight mistake and inadvertent, evidence could not be produced, does not make the party seeking permission to lead additional evidence entitled for the same. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Dismissed.