RAJINDER PARKASH Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 3. 12. 1997 passed by the Civil Judge (J. D.) Nabha. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 of Rule 17-A C. P. C. for additional evidence on the averments that DW-2 Karamvir Singh was cross-examined on 14. 7. 1997 and during his cross-examination he was confronted with Ex. P-3 proposed site plan of construction which according to the plaintiff was sanctioned by Ishtak Ali, the then Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Nabha.

(2.) MR . Batta, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the present case is a case of negligence but for that negligence party should not be allowed to suffer particularly when the opposite side can be compensated by imposing costs on the plaintiff/petitioner. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh and Anr. v. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishan, A. I. R. 1969 Punjab and Haryana 197. I however, do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel of tie petitioner particularly keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case which have been mentioned in detail in the impugned order. In the impugned order, it has clearly been stated that it was for the plaintiff to prove the site plan which he failed to prove when the plaintiff was given full opportunity to examine his witnesses. He waited to prove the site plan till a witness from the defendant side was examined. Since that witness only stated that he could not identify the signatures of Ishtak Ali particularly when there was overwriting on the signatures of Ishtak Ali, the site plan could not be proved. This witness was examined on 14. 6. 1997. The petitioner even after the examination of the aforesaid witness of the defendants, did not file any application immediately after 14. 6. 1997 and waited till 18. 11. 1997 when the present application for additional evidence was filed. In my opinion this is one of the cases of gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case Balwant Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case which have been mentioned in details herein above.