PUNJABI UNIVERSITY Vs. MANI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patiala, dated November 18, 1997, dismissing the application for adducing additional evidence.

(2.) The petitioner, namely, Punjabi University, Patiala, filed the suit against respondent-defendant for recovery of Rs. 81,367.55 with interest on the ground that the respondent-defendant embezzled this amount during the period when he worked as Cashier on contract basis with the University. The evidence had been led in by the plaintiff and the defendant and the matter had been posted for rebuttal evidence. At that stage, the petitioner moved an application for adducing additional evidence. In that application, it is stated that the evidence in regard to the shortage of the amount has already been adduced but the evidence in regard to the item wise shortage has not been filed, therefore, they want to file the documents, namely, receipts regarding postal service and demand drafts received by the defendant and the details regarding the amounts received by the defendant but not disbursed to the concerned officials nor deposited in the bank and also the bank account for the relevant period to show that the amounts have not been deposited. This application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the provisions of order 18, Rule 17-A, Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted and hence the University filed this revision petition.

(3.) It is no doubt true that under Order is Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the additional evidence can be permitted only if the party satisfies the court that the evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the party was leading the evidence. But this provision is always subject to order 18, Rule 2 sub-rule (4) which empowers the court to direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. The claim of the petitioner was for the recovery of the amount said to have been embezzled by the respondent. The University is now seeking to adduce the evidence with regard to the details of the amount embezzled and also the bank account. It cannot be said that the petitioner is trying to fill-up the lacuna. These documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. It is settled law that even in appeal, additional evidence can be adduced under Order 41, Rule 27, if the said evidence is required for a proper adjudication of the controversy. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the University can be allowed to adduce the additional evidence. It is in the nature of the receipts regarding postal certificates and demand drafts received by the defendant and also the details of the amount received by the defendant during the course of his employment and bank account. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the revision petition deserves to be allowed.