WAZIR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Punjab National Bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 93410/- against Kashmir Singh, Wazir Singh and Sharma Singh. Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18-10-1993. Aggrieved there against, the Bank filed appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the Bank also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence. This application was not contested by the defendants and it was only prayed that the application may be allowed subject to payment of heavy costs. It was also noticed by the learned Distt. Judge that the defendants had not produced any evidence during the trial of the suit and they even did not themselves step into the witness box. Thus, in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the defendants, the learned District Judge granted one opportunity to the plaintiff to lead additional evidence subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- as costs. Learned District Judge consequently remitted the matter to the trial Court and directed the parties to appear there on 12-1-1995. It is against this order of the learned District Judge, that one of the defendants has filed this appeal.

(2.) On notice of motion having been issued, the plaintiff-bank has put in appearan.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that after the matter was remitted to the trial Court, the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 concluded their evidence and now the case is fixed for evidence of defendant No. 2. The documents which were sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, are stated to be already on the record and have been exhibited. Costs of Rs. 2000/- imposed by the learned District Judge for producing additional evidence were tendered by the plaintiff and have been accepted by some of the defendants. In the above situation, I am of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the view taken by the learned Distt. Judge, the appeal is consequently dismissed.