BISHAN RAM Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 7. 6. 1996 passed by the trial court allowing the defendant's prayer for additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) AFTER the parties had concluded their evidence and the arguments were partly heard the defendant filed an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence by producing the original will dated 26. 12. 1988 as according to the defendant the same had earlier been misplaced and was found only when some family partition took place on 22. 5. 1996. The prayer made in the application was that he be allowed to produce and prove the same by examining the attesting witnesses. Notice of the application was given to the plaintiff who opposed the same.

(3.) IT was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court grossly erred in law in allowing the application when arguments in the case had been partly heard. It was also contended that the defendant had not satisfied the court that after the exercise of due diligence he could not produce the will at the time when he was leading his evidence and therefore, he should not be allowed to produce the same thereafter. He has relied upon the decisions of this court in Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal and Anr. , 1991 P. L. J. 201, Smt. Sarto v. Dhan Ram, (1993-1)103 P. L. R. 624 and Karan Singh v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur, 1994 (1) R. R. R. 658, in support of his contentions.