SAT PAL Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption against the respondents. After the parties had concluded their evidence final arguments were heard on May 17, 1991, and the case was posted for final orders for May 22, 1991. On that day, an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made by the defendant-vendees stating that in the written statement a specific objection had been taken that the pre-emptor Satpal was father's brother's son of the vendors Mohinder and Surjit and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagdish and Ors. v. Nathimal Kejriwal, A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 68, the plaintiff could not succeed on the ground of being a co-sharer with the vendor. It was prayed that even though the aforesaid objection had been duly taken in the written statement at the earliest stage, this aspect had not been argued and that further arguments on this aspect of the matter may be heard. The application was apparently not contested and the case was accordingly fixed for further arguments, which were heard. Another application was thereafter made on May 29, 1991, under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence. Learned counsel states at the Bar that only a mutation of inheritance being mutation No. 1490 attested on June 24, 1979, whereby the estate of Bakhtawar, father of Rameshwar, who was son of the pre-emptor as well as Balwant, father of the vendors, was to be proved, besides the statement of one of the defendants. The aforesaid application for additional evidence was, however resisted, but by the impugned order the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application. Aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff-pre-emptor has filed this revision.

(2.) THE discussion in this revision is rendered more or less academic in view of the recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhikha Ram v. Ram Sarup and Ors. , (1992-1) 101 P. L. R 49 (S. C.) in which a larger Bench has overruled the law in Jagdish's case (supra ). It follows that even if the defendant-respondents lead additional evidence and establish the alleged rationship of the pre-emptor with the vendor, it will not by itself be sufficient to dismiss the suit.

(3.) EVEN otherwise the revision petition deserves acceptance in view of the interpretation placed on the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Madan Mohan Aggarwal v. Smt. Mansa Devi and Ors. , (1985-2) 88. P. L. R. 206 which was followed by another learned Judge of this Court in M/s Ram Gopal Benarsi Dass v. Satish Kumar, (1990-2) 98 P. L. R. 277. It was held in the aforesaid decisions that the last stage in the trial of a suit is the stage up to conclusion of. arguments and the expression "later stage" occurring in Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure could at the most extend up to the stage when final arguments are concluded. In other words, the view in the aforesaid decisions is that the Court has no jurisdiction to allow an application for additional evidence after conclusion of final arguments and before the delivery of the judgment. Though have my own reservations about the correctness of the aforesaid view, but I do not find the present case to be a fit one to refer to a larger Bench especially as the law in Jagdish's case (supra) has since been reversed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and, as stated earlier, the present exercise is rendered more or less academic.