RAMBHATERI Vs. LALI DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Rambhateri has filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanina, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff seeking permission to lead additional evidence has been allowed at a much belated stage.

(2.) Briefly stated, the respondent No. 1-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff along with proforma defendant in the suit are owners in possession of the suit land, as detailed in the plaint and therefore, they being coparcener's are entitled to get their names entered in the revenue record as per their share. It has further been prayed that the deed No. 2228 dated 09.03.2006 executed on behalf of Gulzari Lal in favour of the petitioner-defendant, on the basis of which mutation No. 3217 has been registered in favour of the petitioner, is against law and is based on misrepresentation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has argued that the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 passed by learned civil Court on the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under section 151 CPC allowing the plaintiff to lead additional evidence is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No justified reason has been furnished by the plaintiff to lead additional evidence. The plaintiff has led entire evidence after availing numerous opportunities and thereafter, the evidence of plaintiff was closed on the basis of statement of the counsel for the plaintiff after tendering documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Even the petitioner-defendant has also concluded her evidence and the same was closed. Thereafter, the case was fixed for arguments, but the respondent No. 1-plaintiff, in order to delay the matter, had filed an application under Order 18, Rule 17-A read with section 151 CPC with the averments that some revenue record of consolidation and Jamabandi was left to be produced on record and the same was relevant for just decision of the case. Therefore, the plaintiff had prayed for production of those documents by way of additional evidence.