RAM DEV Vs. SATBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Rewari, dated September 19, 1989, declining the application for production of additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. By way of additional evidence, the petitioners wanted to produce on record a Handwriting Expert for comparing the thumb impression of Bimla Devi (deceased) on the agreement of sale dated July 18, 1982, with the admitted thumb impressions on written statement and power of attorney. The application has been declined on the ground that sufficient opportunities were granted to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence and that the case does not fall within the four corners of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court was further of the view that the execution of the agreement could be proved by examining the scribe and other attesting witnesses. In fact, on this ground alone two rulings, that is, Shera v. Asa Ram, 1987 P. L. J. 278 and Weston Electronics Ltd. v. Chand Radio, 1988 P. L. J. 198 were distinguished.

(2.) AT the time of hearing of the revision petition it has remained undisputed before me that the defendants have yet to adduce their evidence. In view thereof, if the expert is allowed to be produced, the defendants can very well lead evidence by way of producing either direct evidence or evidence of the expert in their defence. Moreover, it has been held in so many judicial pronouncements that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure are not to be interacted in a manner which defeats the cause of justice. In this respect, reference can be made to various judicial pronouncements, namely, Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (1987-2) 92 P. L. R. 393, Raj Kumar v. Improvement Trust Hansi, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 196 and Jes Raj v. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation, (1990-1) 97 P. L. R. 652.

(3.) I am in respectful agreement with the views taken in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements. Moreover, this Court is disinclined to shut the evidence on technical considerations.