SUNITA DEVI Vs. GAJRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is impugning the order dtd. 2/12/2021 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari vide which an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for leading additional evidence was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality being contrary to the settled principles of law. He further submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the documents, which the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was seeking to produce by way of additional evidence, were already in his knowledge and possession at the time of recording of his evidence. Hence, at a belated stage after the defendant's evidence had been led, respondent No.1 could not be allowed to fill-in the lacuna in his case, more so, when there was no satisfactory explanation forthcoming as to why the said documents were not led in evidence at an earlier stage.

(3.) Learned counsel further submits that the suit in question was filed in the year 2013, therefore, after almost ten years, the lis could not be allowed to be reopened when it was at the verge of conclusion. In support, learned counsel has placed reliance upon'Puran Mal vs. Sawai Singh' (CR-16473-2018, d/d 14/1/2019) and'Mohit and others vs. Rishpal Singh and others' 2019(1) Law Herald 926.