ATMA RAM Vs. RAM SARUP GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order passed by Subordinate Judge First Class, Kurukshetra by which he refused to permit production of additional evidence in the case in which not only the parties had closed their evidence, but even final arguments had also been heard. The reason for production of this additional evidence appears to be that in the present litigation, according to the landlord the rate of rent of the demised shop was Rs. 50 per month plus house-tax, but according to the petitioner-tenant the above rent was inclusive of House-tax. The petitioner by producing the copy of an earlier ejectment application filed by the respondents against the petitioner and the orders passed therein, by way of additional evidence was desirous of showing that in the earlier ejectment application the landlord had himself mentioned the rate of rent to be Rs. 50 inclusive of house-tax. The trial Court gave ample opportunity to the petitioner to produce these documents for the scrutiny of the Court, but even though four months had passed by, these copies were not produced in Court. Instead, the petitioner sought to produce certified, copy of statement made by the counsel for the petitioner in the previous application.

(2.) The matter has received a careful consideration at the hands of the trial Court who has rightly considered the principle under which additional evidence is to be allowed to be produced. The Court has observed that before being permitted to produce additional evidence, the petitioner was called upon to show that the said evidence was not within his knowledge and could not be produced after exercise of due diligence at the time the evidence was led. The learned Subordinate Judge held that both these crucial ingredients were lacking. Even during the course of the arguments before me, there is no answer to the above legal objection and all that is stated, is that in the interest of justice, the additional evidence may be permitted. A consideration of this matter reveals that the prayer for additional evidence is being made not only at a very belated stage but, in fact, when there is no stage of the proceedings before the Court, as all that is left is the pronouncement of the orders by the trial Court, the final arguments having already been heard. The learned counsel for the respondents has brought to my notice Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijavachand Sirimal, 1966 AIR(AP) 295, wherein it was held that the hearing of the suit comes to an end when the judgment is delivered or when the suit is posted for judgment where it is reserved. In the case in hand also, the suit was posted for pronouncement of the judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has indeed cited certain authorities in which it is laid down that the additional evidence may be permitted at any stage, howsoever delayed if the interest of justice requires it. However, I find from the circumstances which have been noticed above that the petitioner has been grossly negligent in the matter and in spite of sufficient opportunity having been granted, he did not avail of the same. The trial Court was, therefore, quite justified in exercising its discretion in disallowing the production of additional evidence. There is no occasion to interfere with this discretion in the present Revision Petition which is consequently dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.