STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. FANKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Court of Sub-Judge (2), Rohru dated 21-10-1995 whereby the application for leading additional evidence, moved by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondent. A perusal of the consequence of the order passed by the lower Court shows that on 14-6-1995, though the case was called twice, no one appeared on behalf of the defendant, hence he was proceeded against ex parte and the case was fixed for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff on 21-7-1995. Ultimately, the statement of one Shri T. R. Banger, Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Rohru was recorded as PW-1. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. On 19-10-1995, arguments in the suit were heard and the case was adjourned for orders on 21 -10-1995. A perusal of the record shows that the application for consideration of additional evidence is dated 29-9-1995, however, the affidavit in support thereof was filed only on 19-10-1995. Moreover, the application does not disclose any reason as to why the Manager of the Plaintiff-bank who had been authorised to file the present suit was not examined earlier by the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that since the arguments in the impugned suit were already heard and the case was reserved for order and there was nothing left to be done by the plaintiff, therefore, according to the learned lower Court, the application at such a belated stage would not lie. In support of this reason, the learned Court below has relied on the case reported as Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993. It has been held therein that if the entirety of the "hearing" of the suit has been completed and the Court being competent to pronounce the judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely for the purpose of pronouncing the judgment under Order 20 Rule 1, there is clearly no adjournment of "the hearing" of the suit. In other words, once arguments had been heard and the case was fixed for orders, nothing remained to be done and as per the reasoning of the learned lower Court, the application for additional evidence at this belated stage was not maintainable. In the similar circumstances, it has also been held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case reported as Ram Gopal Banarsi Daso Vs. Satish Kumar, 1990 (2) PLR 277 , that after conclusion of the arguments, application for additional evidence is not maintainable. This ruling has also been relied upon by the trial Court.