LAWS(P&H)-2005-3-70

BASANT RAJ Vs. KAUSHAL KISHORE

Decided On March 28, 2005
BASANT RAJ Appellant
V/S
KAUSHAL KISHORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for setting aside order dated 12.1.2005 passed by the Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent for adducing the additional evidence to prove that the plaintiff-respondent firm has been a proprietorship concern of one Kaushal Kishore. The plaintiff-respondent had filed Civil Suit No. 98 on 13.5.2002 for recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. 2,45,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,15,000/- as interest) on the basis of a pronote and a receipt dated 31.5.2000. There was no issue framed on the question whether the plaintiff- respondent is a partnership or a proprietorship concern. After both the parties have closed their evidence and the case was fixed for arguments, an application under Section 151 for adducing additional evidence was filed to prove the issue that the plaintiff-respondent is a sole proprietorship firm. The application has been allowed by the impugned order. The operative part of the order reads as under :-

(2.) MR . Tajender Joshi, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that there is no power with the Civil Court to permit adducing of additional evidence for filling up lacunas left when the plaintiff-respondent was adducing his affirmative evidence. The learned counsel has further argued that the application was moved at a stage when the arguments in the suit had been addressed which is obviously a misuse of the process of the Court and such a course could not be permitted by law.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their rival submissions, I am of the view that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order exercising jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court itself has felt the necessity of adducing of additional evidence because it would be helpful in bringing on record a clear picture. Once such an opinion has been expressed by the Court, then the power to permit additional evidence can be traced to Rule 18 Order 2 Explanation 1 as has been added by the local amendment applicable to Punjab and Haryana. The aforementioned Explanation 1 is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:-