MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. SANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 26. 2. 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mansa. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner seeking permission of the Court to lead the additional evidence. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) MR . Bains, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff came to know that thumb impression of deceased Mit Singh was available in the Bank of Cooperative Society, Mansa, as said Mit Singh was having a bank account in that bank. He further submits. that the plaintiff had filed an affidavit before the learned trial Court that this fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff after the evidence of the plaintiff had already been closed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order, I, however, find that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, where, a party satisfies the Court that it was not within his knowledge, the evidence which the party wants to adduce as additional evidence, the party should be permitted to produce the additional evidence. In para 3 of the impugned order itself, it has been stated that the applicant has filed an affidavit in support of the averments made in the application and in the affidavit it was clearly stated that the plaintiff came to know about the evidence sought to be produced, after the evidence of the plaintiff was already closed. Since no counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent-defendant was filed and in view of the fact that the additional evidence sought to be produced came to the knowledge of the plaintiff after the evidence of the plaintiff has already been closed, I am of the view that the petitioner-plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to examine the additional evidence. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26. 2. 1997 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Consequently the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17-A stands allowed. It is, however, made clear that the learned trial Court shall give only one opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff to examine the additional evidence at his own risk and no further opportunity except the said opportunity shall be given to the petitioner-plaintiff. The petitioner, however, may approach the learned trial Court to get summons of the parties to be examined by way of additional evidence. With this order, the petition stands disposed of.