JAGDISH Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order dated 10.9.1994 of Sub Judge 1st Class, Rewari, declining the petitioner's prayer for further opportunity to adduce evidence.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that even when a defendant had filed admission written statement, the same does not debar him from leading evidence by any express or implied provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to grant the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to support his case even as per his admission written statement. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner (defendant No. 5) filed an admission written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff in toto. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioner is not at issue with the plaintiff. There is no issue in respect of which the petitioner has to adduce evidence. It is also worth noticing that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not choose to rebut the assertion of the counsel for the respondents that an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller against the petitioner and affirmed too by the appellate authority. The trial Court while making mention of the admission written statement further highlighted that, in fact, the present suit is at the behest of defendant No.5. No doubt, there is no express or implied provision under Order 15 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure debarring a defendant from leading evidence when he has admitted the claim of the plaintiff, yet in the context of the present case to allow such a person to lead evidence when the suit itself is purported to have been filed at his behest would indirectly amount to giving an opportunity to the plaintiff (through defendant) to fill up the lacuna in the case, such a course is not permissible in law.