JAGDISH KUMAR Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Kamal whereby, an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC' by the plaintiff for permission to produce and prove documents by way of additional evidence has been allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-.

(2.) At the time of notice of motion, learned Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the judgment relied upon by the learned trial Court in the case of "Surinder Kapoor v. Gurdev Singh",2009 3 RCR 595 was not applicable as that was a case where the evidence was closed by order of the Court. It is further submitted that on 21.5.2009, by way of statement of counsel for the plaintiff, oral evidence was closed and on 10.6.2009 after tendering documentary evidence, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. On 10.6.2009, the evidence of the defendant was closed. It is submitted that there is no occasion for the learned trial Court to allow the plaintiff to produce on record documents by way of additional evidence, which are the judgment of the Civil Court and also the electricity bill and ration card.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has cited decision of this Court in the case of "Prem Lata v. Ram Sarup",2005 4 RCR 423 to contend that necessary documents per se admissible in evidence must be allowed to be produced in evidence, may be subject to costs as per the procedure of law is handmaid of justice and it must be used to advance the cause of justice and to avoid causing injustice. She also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of "Basant Raj v. Kaushal Kishore, 2005 141 PunLR 76 to contend that once good and sufficient reasons are recorded by the Court permitting the additional evidence, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere unless great prejudice is shown to have caused to the other party. In respect of the decision in the case of Surinder Kapoor (supra) it is submitted that of course the order was passed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC for closing of the evidence but learned Court below had also dismissed the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17A of the CPC, therefore, the revision petition was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2500/- as Costs.