VINOD KUMAR Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.6.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, by which his application for producing jamabandi for the year 1998-99 by way of additional evidence, has been declined.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are owners of the suit property which was allegedly agreed to be sold to the plaintiff on 2.7.2002 and date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 1.7.2004. However, before the said date could arrive, the plaintiff sold the suit property to the petitioner on 22.3.2004 against a valuable consideration without notice. The petitioner took the plea of a bonafide purchaser of the suit property in which it was alleged that before purchasing the property in dispute, he had seen the revenue record from which it transpired that his vendor/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of the suit property.

(3.) IN reply, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that though Order 18 Rule 17-A of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,'CPC') has been deleted, yet the Court had been allowing the application with the aid of Section 151 of CPC, but the petitioner has to show some due diligence exercised by him, at the time he was leading evidence, that evidence escaped his notice and could not be brought on record which is now sought to be produced.