CHARAN SINGH Vs. AJIT SINGH ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an occurrence on 22nd October, 1993, the plaintiff alleges to have suffered injuries in his leg. Consequently, he filed a suit for damages to the extent of Rs. 1 lac against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the evidence of the parties was closed on 31st August, 1998. Thereafter an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff alleging that because of bonafide mistake and inadvertence on the part of the counsel for the plaintiff, two material witnesses could not be examined and prayer was made for summoning the said witnesses by way of leading additional evidence. This application was opposed by the non-applicants-defendants, who averred that the plaintiff is trying to fill up a lacuna in his case at this stage. Learned trial Court, vide its order dated 26th October, 1998 allowed the application subject to payment of Rs. 300/- as costs, giving rise to the present revision petition filed by the defendant (petitioner herein).

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the case of Daya Kaur v. Risala, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 168 and Madan Aggarwal v. Smt. Mansa Devi and Ors., (1985-2)88 P.L.R. 206 to argue that firstly the application ought to have been dismissed because it does not satisfy the basic ingredients of Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. and secondly that once arguments have been heard, the application for additional evidence does not lie.

(3.) Firstly, I would deal with the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It cannot be said as a proposition of law that once the arguments in a case have been heard, the Court is functus officio to interfere in an application for additional evidence. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, need not detain me any further because this question was discussed and dealt with in some length by this Court in the case of Chandgi v. Mehar Chand and Ors., (1998-1)118 P.LR. 867 wherein the Court held as under:-