RAJU SHARMA Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order I propose to dispose of two civil revisions being CR No. 1687 of 1998 and CR 1956 of 1998. Plaintiffs Pardeep Kumar and others had instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff and the defendants are co-sharers and co- owners of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and the alleged family settlement deed dated 27.9.1984 is illegal being result of a fraud and misrepresentation. Further, consequential relief of injunction was prayed for. The suit was contested by the defendants Manohar Lal and others. The Plaintiffs had closed the evidence. Three witnesses on behalf of the defendants had been examined. However, on 20.12.1997 as the defendants failed to produce entire evidence, the learned trial court closed the evidence of the defendant. It noticed that inspite of grant of last opportunity to the defendants the entire evidence was not present and as such the evidence of the defendants was closed. This order resulted in filing of present revision petitions before this Court. CR 1956 of 1998 has been filed alongwith an application (CM 5394 Cll of 1998) under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act praying for condonation of 49 days delay in filing the revision.

(2.) After passing of the order on or about March, 1998, the defendants filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A for permission to produce additional evidence and to place the documents stated in the application on record. This application was contested by the plaintiffs. Vide order dated 1.4.1998 the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the defendants. This order has been impugned by the defendant-petitioner in CR 1687 of 1998.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. The basic contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the controversy in issue and has not applied the correct preposition of law. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and thus, has fallen in error of jurisdiction while dismissing the application for additional evidence. It is also contended by him that in the interest of justice another opportunity to complete his evidence should have been allowed to the petitioner and as such the order dated 20.12.1997 is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that both the orders passed by the learned trial Court dated 20.12.1997 and 1.4.1998 do not call for any interference and they are in consonance with the settled principles of law.