BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. RESHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's Revision Petition. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-petitioners, restraining them from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the land in dispute. An application under Order 26 Rule 9 for appointment of a Local Commissioner was moved by the plaintiff which was dismissed by the trial Court on 20th September, 1989. Plaintiff moved another application dated 7th March, 1990 for adducing additional evidence in the form of a certified copy of an order dated 26th July, 1988 passed by Collector, Kapurthala. Evidence of the parties were closed and the case was fixed for arguments on October 24, 1990. On October 12, 1990, plaintiff moved another application for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The trial Court disallowed the application for the appointment of Local Commissioner, but in the alternative treated this to be an application for additional evidence on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and find force in the submission made by him. Application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for appointment of a Local Commissioner had earlier been rejected. Second application on the same point under the circumstances of this particular case was not maintainable. Under Order 18, Rule. 17A, power has been given to the trial Court to permit additional evidence even at a later stage, but such a permission can only be given if the conditions mentioned; in Rule 17-A for leading additional evidence stand satisfied.