SH AMRIK SINGH Vs. PRAHLAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 20th May, 1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Ludhiana. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff (respondents herein) under Order 18, Rule 17-A, CPC read with Section 151 CPC for examining additional evidence.

(2.) THE admitted facts of the case are that the evidence of the plaintiffs respondents was closed on 12th May, 1993. Thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner/defendant was closed on 12. 12. 1994. On 16th January, 1995, when the case was fixed for arguments, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint and for producing fresh site plan. The said application was, however, rejected by the learned trial Court. The aforesaid order of the learned trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff in this Court in C. R. No. 961 of 1995 which was allowed vide judgment dated 8th May, 1995. While allowing the said revision petition, this Court directed that the plaintiff would be given only one opportunity to lead his evidence and one opportunity will also be given to the defendant to lead his evidence, if any. It was further directed that the trial Court will dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within four months. It appears that in pursuance of the judgment dated 8th May, 1995, passed by this Court, the plaintiff/respondents availed of one opportunity to examine their witnesses. On 22nd August, 1995, the defendant (petitioner herein) tendered some documents in the Court and requested for an adjournment but his request for adjournment was declined by the learned trial Court on the ground that the High Court vide judgment dated 8th May, 1995 had directed that the suit itself should be disposed of within four months. Thereafter, about 9 opportunities were given to the plaintiffs to examine their evidence in rebuttal but they failed to examine any evidence in rebuttal. On 15th March, 1996, the plaintiffs however, filed an application under Order 18, Rule 17-A which has given rise to the present petition.

(3.) MISS Suman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that keeping in view the interest of justice, the learned trial Court passed the order granting one more opportunity for examining additional evidence as the additional evidence sought to be produced is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case.