RAJESH BEDI Vs. SH DHAR BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order, dated 23rd July, 1997, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phagwara. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has rejected an application filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 17a, CPC seeking permission of the Court for examining additional evidence. The additional evidence is in the shape of documentary evidence i. e. certified copies of the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 and 1988-89 as well as the birth certificate of the plaintiff. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent.

(2.) MR . Jasbir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in the present case, on the date the impugned order was passed the defendants's evidence was yet to commence. He however, submits that by way of additional evidence the plaintiff wants to bring on record the birth certificate and certified copies of the Jamabandi. He therefore, contends that in the interest of justice, the learned trial court ought to have allowed this application. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Ganpati Udyog Village v. Punjab National Bank, (1996-2)113 P. L. R. 437.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and having perused the impugned order, i am of the opinion that the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17-a CPC ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice as the plaintiff only wants to bring on record certified copies of the Jamabandi and the birth certificate. To allow an application under Order 18, Rule 17a, CPC facts and circumstances of every case have to be examined and in case it is found that the ends of justice will be served, the application can be allowed even at the stage when the evidence of the parties has been closed. In the present case, it is not disputed that on the day when the impugned order was passed, evidence of the defendant had not even been concluded. In the case of Ganpati Udyog (supra) it was held by this Court that even the appellate court can allow additional evidence to be produced in a case where the lower court has refused to admit any evidence which it ought to have admitted in the facts and circumstances of the case.