SWAMI ICE FACTORY Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of any application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners for additional evidence before the trial Court, which has been rejected. The facts of the case relevant for its disposal are that a suit for recovery of the damages was filed by the plaintiff-respondents on 4th September, 1995, whereby they claimed that their building had suffered damages on account of the activities of the defendant- petitioners. In the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendants, the stand taken was that damage to the building of the respondent had taken place on account of their own act and conduct and on account of unprecedented floods in Malout City in 1995 and subsequent rise of sub soil water that had accumulated within the premises. The evidence of some of the witnesses of the defendants had been recorded when the defendants moved the application aforesaid praying that they be allowed to adduce the following additional evidence :

(2.) Notice of the application was served on the respondents, who filed reply thereto and stated that no case for additional evidence was made out and the effort of the defendant-petitioners was to delay the decision of the suit. The trial Court on a consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that this assertion of the respondents was justified and further that the additional evidence which was now sought to be adduced was well within the knowledge of the petitioners, when they had led their evidence and as such, it could not be said that the application filed by the petitioners was bonafide or necessary. The trial Court also noticed that one Vishan Ahuja had appeared as DW-1 and clearly stated that the damage had taken place not because of the flood water that had entered the premises but because of the rise of the sub soil water that had accumulated within the premises. Having held as above, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence this revision before this Court.

(3.) It has been argued by Mr. Pathela, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the positive case of the petitioner-defendants before the trial Court was that it was the flood water that had caused damage to the building of the plaintiff- respondents and as such, it was in the interest of justice that additional evidence which was now sought to be produced be permitted as it was to prove that unprecedented rains and floods had caused damage to the buildings. He has further urged that the rules and procedure were hand maids of justice and should not be used to shut out proper evidence for a just decision of the case.