SURAJ BHAN Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's prayer for leading additional evidence was declined by the trial Court vide the impugned order dated May 5, 1990. It is undisputed position that in suit No. 37 of 1988 in which the petitioner wants to lead additional evidence, the Court had closed his evidence vide order dated July 24, 1989 under Order 17 Rule 3 read with Rule 2, C.P.C. Subsequently this suit, however, was consolidated with another suit vide order dated September 17, 1989 which order was concededly later set aside by the High Court on March 7, 1990. It was after the passing of this order by the High Court that the petitioner moved the present application for leading additional evidence in suit No. 37, as indicated above. In the application no case for leading this evidence as envisaged by Rule 17-A of Order 18, C.P.C. has been made out. It is nowhere alleged how the evidence which is sought to be produced was not within the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner or he could not be aware of the same even after exercise of due diligence on his part nor has any circumstance been shown or pleaded as to why the evidence could not be produced prior to July 24, 1989, the day on which his evidence was closed by the order of the Court. Therefore, it is patent that the provisions of Rule 17-A referred to above are not attracted to the facts of this case at all. The learned counsel however has made reference to certain judgments wherein additional evidence was allowed keeping in view the nature of the evidence sought to be produced. I am of the view that nature of the evidence has nothing to do with the requirements of Rule 17-A. The matter primarily concerns the conduct or the diligence on the part of the party seeking to lead the additional evidence. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. No costs.