(1.) This matter arises out of three applications moved under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence. In the first application, a prayer was made that the file of civil suit No. 224, containing the original writing dated October 21, 1985, which was a family settlement between some of the present contestants, be produced in the Court and examined by Handwriting Expert Dewan K.S. Puri dated November 14, 1993 pertaining to the aforesaid family settlement. A third application was moved for permission to produce on record the photographic chart, negatives of photos and certified copies of the vakalatnama dated March 7, 1993.
(2.) Replies were filed by the opposite party and it was pointed out that the applications had been filed after a long delay as the arguments in the suit had already been heard on November 5, 1993 and November 17, 1993 and after both parties had taken a long time to produce their evidence. It has been explained that the aforesaid applications had been filed after almost seven years from the date of the closure of the evidence by both the parties. It has been accordingly prayed that the condition precedent under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Civil Procedure Code had not been spelt out and the defaulting party was not entitled to fill up the lacuna in its evidence. The trial Court in its order dated February 23, 1994 held that though such additional evidence was not to be allowed in a mechanical manner and the applications were perhaps not justified in terms of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code, but keeping in view the dispute between the parties and in the interest of justice (that party would not suffer on account of some mistake committed by itself or by its counsel) the additional evidence was essential for the just decision of the case. It is against this order of the trial Court that the present revision petition has been filed,
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order.