RAMAN KANTA Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present civil revision was filed in 2005. Notice of motion was issued on 5th September, 2005 when the trial court was restrained from passing final order. The stay has continued to operate. The order impugned has been passed on the defendant's application for producing additional, the petitioner before this Court. The primary reason assigned by the court below for rejecting the application is that by the amendments brought about in CPC in 2002, the provisions of order 18 rule 17 CPC stand omitted.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the plaintiff -respondent had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the suit property and prayed thata mandatory injunction be issued to the defendant -petitioner to hand him over vacant possession of the house in dispute. In the written statement filed before the trial court, the defendant had stated that the plaintiff was not the real son of Durga Dass and was only his adopted son whereas the defendant is the real daughter of Durga Dass. It was she who had performed his last rites. She disputed the will dated 28 th August, 1998 in favour of the plaintiff. She relied on a will of Durga Dass dated 15th March, 1999 whereby her father bequeathed the house in dispute in her favour. The will in favour of the petitioner is a holographic will written entirely by hand and signed by the testator Late Durga Dass. In order to match his hand writing in Gurmukhi script, the petitioner has sought amendment in the written statement that she had found a large number of deeds written by Durga Dass a deed writer by profession working in the District Courts. She wanted comparison of the hand writing on the will with her father's deed writing registers in the same script, which may clinch the issue.

(3.) IN Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, 2005 6 SCC 344, the Supreme Court held that the power of Court to allow admittance of additional evidence is inherent in Court and remains unaffected by deletion of order 18 rule 17 A CPC (Act 46 of 1999). It is remains in the discretion and satisfaction of the Court to permit leading of evidence at a later stage on such term as may appear to be just. The Court held following its earlier decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association (I) v. Union of India, 2003 1 SCC 49in para 13 as follows :