BANWARI LAL Vs. SARASWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, herein, are the, plaintiffs before the trial Court in civil suit filed by them against the respondents for declaration to the effect that their occupancy rights in the suit land have ripened into ownership and the respondents should be restrained from usurping the same. They closed their evidence without tendering jamabandis for the years 1938 -39, 1951 -52, 1955 -56 and 1963 -64 and the khasra girdawaries for the years 2005 to 2012. The copies of the jamabandis for the years 1938 -39, 1951 -52 and 1963 -64 have been shown in the Court, today. It is the case of the petitioners that after exercise of due diligence, they could not produce those at the time of closure of their evidence: Their application for additional evidence for tendering of aforementioned revenue documents was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2013. Aggrieved, against the same, they have filed the present revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for allowing them to tender in evidence the aforementioned jamabandis and khasra girdawaries.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the documents sought to be tendered in evidence are per se admissible and, therefore, their tendering in additional evidence by the petitioners is not going to cause any prejudice to the opposite party, who can be compensated with costs for their inconvenience, which they have suffered due to the act of the petitioners of not filing these documents at the time, when they were leading evidence in affirmative.

(3.) PROVISION of Order 18 Rule 17 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been deleted by feeling that unnecessary applications are being filed primarily to delay the conclusion of the trial, as held in Rajesh Kumar v. Mangat Rai and others;, (2012 -2) 166 PLR 334; It was further held that this deletion does not take away inherent power of the Court to do substantial justice between the parties and 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. Vide this judgment, revision petition was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/ -.