BIDHAI RAM Vs. GOKHRAN MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order dated 4. 8. 1997 is impugned in this revision, primarily on the basis that the copy of the ration card, voter lists and the two bills of electricity in regard to the premises in question dated 4. 8. 1991 and 4. 8. 1992, the copies of which have already been placed on record, have not been permitted to be proved. The request for leading additional evidence under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the learned trial Court vide this impugned order.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that these documents, copies of which had already been placed on record, could not be proved because of a bona fide error on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is further submitted that these documents are necessary for the proper and complete adjudication of controversies involving the subject matter of the present suit. Thus, it is prayed that the petitioner should have been permitted to lead additional evidence.

(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties at some length, I would like to proceed on preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent with regard to maintainability of the present revision petition. For the reasons stated in detail in the case of Hazara Singh v. Bachan Singh, (1998-1)118 P. L. R. 765. I am of the considered view that this objection is void of any merit. Definite prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if he is not granted the permission to prove, these documents, the copies of which are already on record. The respondent herein is not being taken by surprise nor authenticity of these documents could be doubted, as the copies of the documents have already been placed on record. Consequently, the ends of justice demand that the petitioner should have been given opportunity to prove these documents to completely and finally adjudicate the dispute between the parties.