CHARAN DEVI Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated February 26, 1992 passed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Kaithal dismissing the application for the petitioner-defendant for additional evidence under Rule 17-A of Order 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for possession by redemption against the petitioner-defendant out of which the present revision petition has arisen amongst others, a plea taken by the defendant-petitioner is that Shri Nand Lal husband of the defendant, is in possession of the property as a tenant. After the plaintiff closed his evidence on March 4, 1991, the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendant on April 1, 1991. Some documents on her behalf were tendered in evidence on the date fixed in the matter was adjourned to April 22, 1991 on which date, defendant-Smt. Charan Devi, after examining three witnesses, closed her evidence. The present application for additional evidence was thereafter filed on her behalf. The defendant wanted to produce two more witnesses who, according to her, were instrumental in bringing about the alleged tenancy of the shop in dispute in favour of her husband Shri Nand Lal. No reason has been mentioned as to why these witnesses could not be produced earlier. The trial Court finding no merit in the application and on the ground that the requirements of Rule 17-A of Order 18 of the Code were not satisfied, dismissed the same.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that the application for Additional evidence was filed only to prolong the proceedings in the trial Court. Suit filed by the plaintiff is one for possession by redemption and the two witnesses now sought to be produced, who, according to the defendant, were to depose in regard to the alleged tenancy in favour of the husband of the defendant, have no material bearing in regard to the merits of the case. If the plaintiff is otherwise entitled to the redemption of the mortgage, the tenancy in favour of Shri Nand Lal even if be there, would not be relevant. At any rate, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that the evidence now sought to be produced by the defendant was not within her knowledge nor has any cogent reason been given as to why those witnesses could not be produced at the time when she produced her evidence. There is no material irregularity much less any illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court in dismissing the application for additional evidence filed on behalf of the defendant and I find no ground to interfere. The revision petition, thus, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties through their counsel have been directed to appear in the trial Court on 12.6.1992 for further proceedings.