RAM GOPAL BANARSI DASS Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point involved in this revision petition is concluded by the decision of this Court in Sh. Madan Mohan Aggarwal v. Smt Mansa Devi, (1985-2) 88 P. L. R. 206, holding therein with respect to the interpretation of Order XVIII, Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as under :-"under the added Rule 17-A, power has been given to the trial Court to permit a party to lead additional evidence even at a later stage of the suit but the final stage of the suit would conclude on hearing of arguments and thereafter no stage would be left with the trial Court to permit a party to lead additional evidence. The later stage would include the last stage as well which would be before the arguments are heard and before the judgment is reserved. "

(2.) IN the present case evidence of the parties was closed on November 6, 1984 and arguments were heard. Thereafter the case was posted for pronouncement of orders for 3. 4. dates. Finally on November 17, 1984, an Application was moved on behalf of the landloard-plaintiff under Order XVIII, Rule I7-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence in the form of a rent note, seeking opportunity to prove the same. The trial Court allowed this application on January 9, 1983. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) SINCE the application was made after final arguments had been concluded and the case was posted for orders, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application or to allow the same in view of the decision in Madan Mohan Aggarwal's case, referred to above.