KHURSHEED HUSSAIN SHAH & OS Vs. AB HAMID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABDUL Hamid, respondent No. 1, has filed a suit against the petitioners herein for permanent prohibitory injunction which is pending disposal in the court of Sub - Judge Surenkote. Parties have led evidence in the case and when the suit was at the stage of arguments petitioners - defendants moved an application for permitting them to produce additional evidence of one witness, Rehamatullah who, according to them, was in possession of the suit land as owner. Plaintiff, respondent No. 1, resisted the said application and learned Sub - Judge after hearing both the sides dismissed the application on March 1, 1991. Aggrieved by that order petitioners - defendants have come up in revision before this court.

(2.) 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, Mr. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that Rehamatullah is the most necessary witness to be produced in the case as he was in possession of the suit land and his evidence would make the court to come to a right conclusion. He has referred to the provisions contained in rule 17 -A of Order 18 C. P. C. under which the court has ample powers to grant such prayer at any stage of the case. Mr. Tak, learned counsel for the respondents has. however, contended that under the above referred provision of Law party claiming production of additional evidence has to satisfy the Court that he could not after exercise of due diligence, produce the witness or he was not having any knowledge about that evidence but the petitioners in the case failed to establish so and the trial court rightly dismissed their application,

(3.) RULE 17 - A, aforesaid, records as under ;