SARWAN KUMAR Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.4.1999 passed by the learned Senior Sub -Judge, Chamba whereby the application of the defendant -petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) under Order 18, Rule 17 -A read with Section 151, CPC praying for grant of permission to lead additional evidence has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly, the relevant facts are that the respondents -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have instituted a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the land measuring 1 -2 bighas comprising Khasra No. 732 situate in Bharmour, more specifically mentioned in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1991 -92 which land is stated to be owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The defendant has contested the claim of the plaintiffs inter -alia on the grounds that the suit land was mortgaged by the father of Joni Ram, Parkash Chand, Vijay Kumar, Puran Chand, sons of Dhyan Singh in Samat 1976 with the fore -fathers of the defendant for Rs. 700/ - which fact was also confirmed in Samat 2084 -85 and the possession of the land was handed over to the fore -fathers of the defendant and, thus, initially his grand -father, then his father and now the defendant remained in continuous possession -of 14 biswas of suit land bearing Khasra No. 732. It is also claimed that the said mortgage has not yet been redeemed.

(3.) Be it stated that when the suit was listed for evidence of the defendant on 23.3.1999, the learned trial Judge noticed that the suit was pending for evidence of the defendant since 13.5.1997 and the defendant had failed to take steps to summon his remaining evidence for the said date, therefore, defence evidence was closed. The defendant then moved an application under Order 18, Rule 17 -A read with Section 151, CPC averring therein that the entire case of the defendants is based on the document of mortgage which document is in Tankri and it could not be earlier proved despite due diligence because its translation could not be got done and that in the absence of such a document, fair justice may not be rendered in the case, hence the application with the prayer that the defendant may be permitted to prove such document. The application was contested by the plaintiffs mainly on the grounds that the defendant was aware of the existence of the document right from the beginning and he could have proved it when he had been given repeated opportunities to lead his evidence, but he failed to examine the necessary witnesses, hence it has been denied that the defendant has been diligent. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge, vide impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that the mortgage deed was well within the knowledge of the defendant but he did not take appropriate steps to prove the mortgage deed despite several opportunities having been afforded to him. Hence the present petition.