SURINDER KUMAR Vs. PREM LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF /petitioner filed a suit for declaration as also for joint possession inter-alia on the ground that he has a right in the property left by his common ancestor Sh. Shiv Charan. It was further claimed that the property in the hands of Arjan Singh, father of the petitioner, was ancestral/huf/coparcenery property and that Arjan Singh had no right to suffer a consent decree in favour of Smt. Prem Lata, Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar. Plaintiff concluded his evidence on 18. 7. 1991 and the defendants thereafter concluded their evidence on 9. 12. 1991. The case was thereafter listed for arguments and at that stage in the year 1991 itself plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce additional evidence in the shape of Jamabandi for the year 1924 to 1937 along with Khatoni istemal, Naqsha Haqdar-war, Khatoni Pamayish and Mutation of inheritence to the estate of Shiv Charan, his grand father. This application was conr tested by the defendants-respondents and the learned trial court by order dated 11. 1. 1992 dismissed the application. Hence this revision at the instance of the plaintiff.

(2.) IT may be noticed at this stage that the parties to the suit are members of the same family. Plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of defendant No. 2, Arjan Singh, whereas Smt. Prem Lata, defendant No. 1 is the wife of Arjan Singh. Shiv Charan is the father of Arjan Singh and grand father of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. It seems that Arjan Singh suffered a decree in favour of his two sons Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, who are defendants in the suit based on a family settlement. This decree has perhaps given rise to this litigation as is apparent from the claim made in the suit.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to succeed. The plaintiff moved an application for production of additional evidence within a short span of closing his evidence though after the conclusion of the evidence by the defendants. Plaintiff relied upon these documents in the list of documents sought to be produced in the suit at the time of institution of the suit. He also moved an application for preparation of revenue excerpts for producing the said documents, but he could not produce the same perhaps due to inadvertence or for some other cause. The documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are the part of public record and there is no chance of their being fabricated. The documents are also more than 30 years old. Not only this these documents if permitted to be produced on record will enable the court to determine the real controversy between the parties and to pronounce a satisfactory judgment. There is no chance of these documents being fabricated by the plaintiff on a later date and the defendants for the late production of these documents could be compensated by payment of costs. It is true that these documents cannot be said to be such, which were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff or he could not produce the same after due diligence, but additional evidence in a given case can be permitted to be produced on account of any other sufficient cause or in order to determine the controversy between the parties more effectively and in order to render a satisfactory judgment. The trial court while declining the prayer of the plaintiff for the production of additional evidence only observed that he did not act fairly and has not exercised due diligence in concluding his evidence and the documents cannot be permitted to be produced by way of additional evidence. In my opinion the approach of the trial court in the facts of this case was too technical. Having regard to the fact that the documents sought to be produced will certainly help in deciding the actual controversy between the parties and that the documents form part of a public record and are beyond fabrication the production of such evidence should not have been declined on technicalities.