TARLOK SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.1997 of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur whereby an application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for leading additional evidence has been dismissed.

(2.) A suit for specific performance of a contract is pending between the parties. Issues in the suit were framed on 7.6.1993 and the petitioner thereafter led some evidence. However, he could not bring the entire evidence despite many opportunities and his evidence was closed by Court order on 8.10.1995. Petitioner, therefore, moved an application for leading additional evidence on 9.9.1997, which as stated above, was declined by the trial Court. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is because of the fault of his counsel that the entire evidence could not be produced and that the evidence now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence is necessary for the proper adjudication of the controversy raised in the suit. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on Hazara Singh v. Bachan Singh, (1998-1) P.L.R. 765. This contention was stoutly opposed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the impugned order shows that evidence of the petitioner was closed by Court order on 6.10.1995. The plaintiff-petitioner did not challenge the said order by filing any revision. It is also not disputed that the present application seeking permission of the Court to lead additional evidence was moved on 9.9.1997. It is not made out from the application that it was because of the fault of the counsel that the Expert could not be examined. It is further evidence that the impugned order that the defendant-respondents took a categorical stand in the written statement that the alleged agreement is a forged document and has been not prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with his witnesses and the scribe. Even a specific issue is said to have also been framed in the suit in that behalf. Now the plaintiff wants to produce an Expert by way of additional evidence to prove the execution of the agreement. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that when the plaintiff was leading his evidence in the affirmative, that was the right time for him to produce the Expert, but it was not done. No reason has been spelled out by the petitioner that it was due to the fault of his counsel that the Expert could not be examined earlier when the evidence in the affirmative was being led. Thus the judgment cited by the counsel is not applicable to the present case. Even the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A are not attracted in this case because under these provisions, only that evidence can be permitted to be led by way of additional evidence which was, either not in the knowledge of the party or which could not be produced despite due diligence. There is none of the situations here. In this view of the matter, it see no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the petitioner's application for leading additional evidence. Revision petition is consequently dismissed. No costs.