KAURA RAM Vs. GOBIND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAURA Ram has filed this petition under Section 115 of Civil P.C. against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Hissar, dated September 29, 1976, by which his application for permission to produce additional evidence, was rejected.

(2.) THE revision petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court. During the course of hearing an objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that the revision was not legally maintainable. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was controverted by Shri Harbans Lal Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that in view of the addition of the explanation to Section 115, C.P. Code, the scope of Section 115 had been enlarged. Finding that the matter deserved to be settled authoritatively, the learned single Judge referred the matter to a larger. Bench. That is how the revision petition has come up for hearing before us.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order was passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge on August 24. 1976, when the evidence of the petitioner had been closed. The copy of that order could not be produced earlier by the petitioner. Issue No. 7 in the suit is in the following terms:- "Whether any arbitration agreement dated 20-10-1970 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. l (Gobind Ram), if so, to what effect?" The copy of the order is sought to produced by the petitioner in order to show that the arbitration agreement was executed between the parties. In our view, the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in refusing permission in produce the copy of the order as additional evidence and has ignored the Provisions of Rule 17-A of Order 18, Civil P.C. In the aforesaid provision, which was introduced in the year 1976, it as provided that if any evidence could not be produced by a party at the time when that party was leading evidence, the Court may permit that party to Produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. As earlier observed, the order was passed on August 24, 1976, when the evidence had been. closed, This piece of evidence was not in existence at the time when the evidence was closed. In this situation, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 17-A of Order 18, the leamed Subordinate Judge should have allowed the application.