SURJAN SINGH Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application filed by the plaintiff for producing additional evidence after both the parties had closed their evidence, was rejected by the trial Court on 23/05/1991 which has been challenged by the plaintiff in this revision petition. In the application two prayers were made; 1) that the plaintiff be permitted to appear as his own witness; and (2) that copies of two documents : (a) copy of jamabandi, (b) copy of pedigree table from the revenue record be allowed to be produced. The stand taken up by the plaintiff was that inadvertently plaintiff's evidence was closed without the plaintiff having appeared as a witness. With respect to the two documents, it was asserted that they were relied upon in the list of reliance placed by the plaintiff. At the time of closure of plaintiff's evidence, statement of the counsel for the plaintiff was recorded wherein several documents were tendered into evidence and admitted as such. It was due to inadvertence that the two documents could not be admitted into evidence.

(2.) Issues were framed in the suit on December 10, 1985. On 3/06/1986 an additional issue was framed. The suit was for possession of 114/349 share of 34 Kanals 7 Marlas of land as described in the plaint. In March 1987 the present suit was consolidated with another pending suit under orders of the Court. Thereafter the plaintiff produce his evidence and ultimately closed it on 6/10/1987. It is at that time that 62 documents were tendered and admitted into evidence in the statement of counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter defendants' evidence was produced which was ultimately closed on 1/02/1988. The present application for producing additional evidence was filed on 29/01/1991.

(3.) During pendency of the present revision petition the fact was strongly disputed on behalf of the respondents that the two documents sought to be produced as additional evidence were inadvertently omitted in the statement of counsel for the plaintiff. The stand taken up by the respondent was that copies of these documents were not produced along with the plaint by the plaintiff, in other words they were not at all on the record when evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 6/10/1987. In this respect an affidavit of respondent was produced. On the other hand learned counsel for the plaintiff produced certified copy of the list of reliance originally filed in the suit indicating that the two documents were mentioned therein which are now sought to be produced. Application for producing additional evidence was read out by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner which clearly indicated that the copies of the documents sought to be produced were attached therewith. Thus it is established that the plea taken by the plaintiff-petitioner that these documents were already on the file of the case and were inadvertently not admitted into evidence on 6/10/1987, is not established. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of this Court in this respect in Sh. Jes Raj, Personal Assistant, Punjab State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (1990-1) 97 Pun LR 652, is misplaced. That was a case where documents had already been produced on the record but they were not admitted or denied and production of such evidence was held to have advanced the casue of justice that resort to the provision of Order 18, Rule 17A of the C. P. C. had and application was allowed. The ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the case in hand as in that case documents were already on the record. On the same ground the other decision relied upon is not helpful i. e. Arjan Singh v. Jagdish Kaur, (1990-2) 98 Pun LR 319.