PREM NATH SHARMA Vs. RAJIV KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 8/4/2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which an application for examining the concerned clerk, GLADA, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana alongwith the record, has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 14/2/2025 and within a period of one month from the same, the petitioner had filed an application for additional evidence for examining the officer of GLADA Authority alongwith the relevant record and has further submitted that the said evidence is very necessary for the final adjudication of the case. It is stated that in the application (Annexure P-4), it had been stated that on account of inadvertence, the said officer could not be examined when the evidence of the defendant was being led. It is further submitted that the said application is meritorious however the trial Court vide the impugned order dtd. 8/4/2025 (Annexure P-6) has dismissed the same and the said order is illegal and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order dtd. 8/4/2025 (Annexure P-6) would show that it had been stated that the suit was instituted in the year 2016 and was a very old case and the present petitioner/defendant had taken 25 effective opportunities for leading his evidence and had closed his evidence on 14/2/2025 and thereafter had filed the said application. It was further observed that the petitioner was not able to give cogent reason as to why the said witness could not be examined earlier and that there is no provision under CPC for allowing additional evidence to be produced by any party. The said order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. Order 18 Rule 17 A of the CPC which provided for production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence has already been deleted from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Thus, there is no right to lead additional evidence.