SANTOSH AGGARWAL Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed impugning the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Safidon, in Civil Suit No. 163 of 1.4.2006, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiff - petitioner to permit him to produce additional documentary evidence on record.

(2.) Plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. The trial Court granted ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Appellate Court and thereafter, the matter was carried to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as C.R. No. 2840 of 2007. This Court instead of disturbing the ad interim injunction, disposed of the earlier CR No. 2840 of 2007 vide order dated 24.5.2007 by observing that the plaintiff shall produce the evidence within two months after framing of issues.

(3.) In the present case, issues were framed on 21.9.2007 and plaintiff has concluded his evidence on 6.11.2007 within the time fixed by this Court. Plaintiff thereafter moved an application seeking permission from the trial Court to produce documentary evidence on record saying documentary evidence (farad-badar 11, 12 and 13) came into existence on 2.7.2008 i.e. after closing the plaintiff's evidence. The trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff on the ground that Order 18 Rule 17(A) CPC has been omitted and as per the directions of this Court vide order dated 24.5.2007, plaintiff had to conclude his evidence within two months and after the expiry of two months, plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence.