MALKIAT SINGH Vs. CHARNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge, in this revision petition, preferred by Malkiat Singh son of Bant Singh -petitioner -plaintiff No.2(for brevity "the plaintiff"), is to the impugned order dated 01.03.2014(Annexure P -4), by virtue of which, the trial Court has allowed the application(Annexure P -2) for additional evidence moved by respondents -defendants Nos.15 to 19 and 21 to 24.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

(3.) EX facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, the trial Court committed a legal mistake to permit the pointed defendants, to allow additional evidence at this stage, particularly when they have already closed their evidence vide statement(Annexure P -1), is neither tenable nor the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar(D) through LRs Versus Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 2 RCR(Civ) 508and of this Court in case Jagir Chand Versus Jagsir Sigh, 1999 4 RCR(Civ) 291, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of those cases, it was observed that the main purpose of recalling of witness is to enable the trial Court to clarify any doubts, which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties and such witness cannot be recalled to fill -up the omissions in the evidence of a witness, who has already been examined and additional evidence cannot be granted without proof of due diligence. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy, for the reasons mentioned here -in -below.