PIARA SINGH Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. In the given set of circumstances the learned trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously as the matter pertains to the evidence which is to be brought by an official. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents have moved an application for framing an additional issue and yet they did not produce this evidence. Consequently, the exercise of the learned trial Court in permitting the petitioner to adduce additional evidence on this aspect cannot be termed to be bona fide.

(3.) In the opinion of this Court the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion. It is always the prerogative of the Court to examine if the situation warrants the permission to enable a litigant to adduce additional evidence. The only requirement that the court is to ensure is that the document which is sought to be produced should be sufficient to enable it to decide the case properly. Having regard to the fact that the trial court has exercised its discretion by keeping in view the facts of the case in entirety, the impugned order cannot be termed to be either perverse or arbitrary so as to warrant any interference.