VED PARKASH SAINI Vs. MOHINDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute is between brothers. According to the petitioner, the brothers along with others were partners in two concerns namely, Mohindera Brothers and Saini Construction Company. The partnership business continued for some time and in the year 1989, some dispute arose between the partners. On the intervention of Pishori Lal and Jia Lal, a settlement was arrived at. According to the petitioner, apart from other terms of the settlement, one of the terms was that rendition of accounts would take place. Respondent refused to render the accounts. As a counter-blast, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 75,000/- on the basis of some cheques given to him by the petitioner. The petitioner in his written statement, alleged that blank cheques were already in possession of the brother, who in order to put pressure, has used the same. The petitioner in order to prove the settlement-deed as well as partnership deeds which were executed in pursuance of the settlement, examined Pishori Lal and Jia Lal, who in their statements admitted the execution of the Partnership-deed in favour of the respondent. However, when a photostat copy of the partnership-deed was put to them, they were unable to admit or deny the same as it was a photostat copy. These two witnesses were examined only after the petitioner had obtained leave of the Court to prove the document by way of secondary evidence. The present application was filed for recalling these witnesses as in the meantime, the petitioner came to know that one copy of the partnership-deed was submitted in the office of the Chief Engineer, Northern Command C/o 56 A. P. O. for the purpose of fresh registration due to new constitution of the firm. The said copy bears the signatures of Pishori Lal and Jia Lal. By way of additional evidence, the petitioner wanted to prove this document. This application, on contest, was dismissed. This order is now being impugned in the present revision petition.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove the document aforesaid by way of additional evidence. The petitioner did examine Pishori Lal and Jia Lal, who had witnessed this document. When a photostat copy of this document was put to them, they were unable to admit or deny the same as it was a photostat copy. Now the petitioner having come to know that the document bears the signatures of Pishori Lal and Jia Lal and the same is in possession of the office of Chief Engineer, Northern Command, C/o 56 A. P. O. , he is certainly entitled to prove the document. I find no force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that prayer for additional evidence cannot be allowed on an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure without making an application under the relevant provisions dealing with the additional evidence. Undoubtedly, the application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but prayer made therein squarely falls within the meaning of Order 18, Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, considering that the application was for production of additional evidence, it is of no consequence that the application was inadvertently made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the impugned order is set aside and the revision petition stands allowed. The petitioner shall be given one opportunity to prove the copy of partnership-deed on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. The petitioner shall take dasti summons to serve the witness (es) and to summon the document. He shall also pay a costs of Rs. 500/- to the plaintiff for this purpose.