JASPAL SINGH Vs. MANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER filed application under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC for taking coercive action against the respondents for willfully disobeying the ex -parte injunction order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Court, whereby, the parties were directed to maintain status quo in the matter of damaging/demolishing any portion of the building of the tenanted suit shops and also in the matter of possession, thereof, till 17.09.2006. This application was opposed by the respondents and issues were framed. Even the evidence was closed by the petitioner. After the closure of evidence by the petitioner, he moved application for permission to lead additional evidence for production of four photographs of the rented premises. But that application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.10.2013 (Annexure P -5).

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the same, the petitioner who is the applicant before the trial Court has come up with this revision petitioner with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for acceptance of his application for additional evidence, that was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Rajesh Kumar v. Mangat Rai and others;, 2012 (2) PLR 334; wherein, it was held that Order 18, Rule 17A was omitted by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002, as it was felt that unnecessary applications were being filed primarily to delay the conclusion of the trial. It was further held that this does not take away inherent power of the Court to do substantial justice between the parties and also allow any material evidence to be produced by them unless it is actuated with mala fides or is due to gross negligence on their part. Revision petition was allowed subject to costs Rs. 5000/ -.