PUNJAB KAUR Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 27. 8. 1991 passed by Shri G. S. Matharoo, Sub Judge 1st Class, Mansa whereby the application for additional evidence filed by the defendant-petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the C. P. C. was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the case of the plaintiff-respondents is that they are the owners of the property in dispute which is 8 kanals 8 marlas situated at Udat Bhagat Ram, Tehsil Mansa by virtue of the sale deed executed on behalf of defendants 1 to 9 on 1. 7. 1967. This suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents in September, 1986. Besides other pleas, the defendants had also taken the plea that the sale deed which is the main stake of the plaintiff, was a forged document and none of them had ever signed or thumb marked the same. The plaintiffs closed their evidence whereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants- on 12. 12. 1990 and the entire evidence of the defendants was recorded and was also closed on the same date. Thereafter the ease was posted for recording rebuttal evidence. The application for additional evidence so as to compare the thumb impression of the defendants on the sale deed was declined in the manner already indicated above. It is against this order that the defendants have come in revision petition before this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, I am of the opinion that the present petition needs to be allowed. It is no doubt true that the defendant have been rather negligent in conducting their case inasmuch as the main defence projected by them was that the sale deed was a forged document and that being so, it should have been their first anxiety to get thumb impressions or the signatures on sale deed compared with the admitted' thumb impressions or signatures of the defendants. However, it is sealed by now that on account of the negligent conduct of the party, the evidence which goes to the root of the case cannot be scuttled. In similar circumstances, this Court permitted recording of additional evidence even though by returning a finding that the parties seeking to lead such evidence were negligent. The judgments are Bakhshish Singh@ Bakshi v. Tara Singh, (1990-2) 98 P. L. R. 614. Harbans Kaur v. Sohan Singh , 1990 (1)S. L. J. 407. and Ram Dev and Anr. v. Satbir Singh , 1990 P. L. J. 521. The first case pertains to comparison of signatures on the pronote after the evidence had already been recorded. The second case pertains to comparison of signatures on a sale deed which was alleged to be a forged document and the last case referred to above pertains to comparison which was to be done with regard to the thumb impression of the persons concerned on an agreement of sale. The provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A if strictly adhered to, perhaps, the additional evidence would be allowed in very limited cases. On the technicalities, however, the cause of justice cannot be permitted to be defeated.