CHANDGI Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the expression 'at any stage or later stage' on the hand and the 'suit is called on for hearing or before such hearing' used in different provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are synonymous to each or admit definite distinction in their meaning and scope, is the basic question that falls for consideration in this revision petition.

(2.) Before entering into the realm of various judgments on this aspects, it will be appropriate to have a composite picture of the facts giving rise to this revision petition.Plaintiff Chandgi had instituted a suit for possession against Mehar Chand and others. The parties were at issue in regard to various aspects forming the subject matter of the suit. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :-(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property as mentioned in the Head Note of the plaint? OPP.(ii) Whether the plaintiff is precluded from filing this suit in view of the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C.? OPD.(iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD.(iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by principle of res judicata? OPD.(v) Relief.The present suit was fixed for recording of evidence. The defendants closed their evidence and the matter was fixed for arguments, which were heard on 3-5-1997 and thereafter the case was fixed for pronouncement. On 5-5-1997, an application was filed by the applicant under Order 18, Rule 17-A of the C.P.C. with a prayer that they be permitted to lead additional evidence to prove issue No. 2. The additional evidence sought to be produced by the applicants relates to the two previous suits bearing Suit No. 101 dated 31-5-1979 and Suit No. 91 dated 20-5-1982 which were filed by the plaintiff and had been dismissed. The copies of the plaints, written statements and the judgments and decree pertaining to the same subject matter passed in these suits were the documents sought to be produced and proved by filing the present application. The application was contested by the plaintiff, who stated that there was not stage for leading the additional evidence as the case has already been reserved for pronouncement of judgment and it will tentamount to reopening the whole controversy. The application is stated to be abuse of process of law and prayer for dismissal of the said application was made. However, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 15-5-1997 permitted the applicants to lead evidence and place the documents aforestated on record. It is this order of the learned trial Court which has been impugned in the present revision petition.

(3.) While challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the application for leading additional evidence cannot be entertained once the suit is reserved and the case is fixed for pronouncement. According to him, the Court loses its jurisdiction to entertain such application. Resultantly, the application filed by the applicants-defendants was not even maintainable. It was also argued that even on merits the application ought to have been rejected as there was definite issue and the applicants ought to have discharged the onus of his issue at the stage when they led their evidence. All these contentions have been countered by the learned counsel for the respondent, who contended that the plaintiff is abusing the process of law by filing suit after suit which have already been dismissed and the documents sought to be proved have a direct bearing on the various issues aforestated and as such the application has been rightly allowed by the learned trial Court.