KANHAIYA LAL Vs. LALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant and after the submissions of the written statements the following preliminary issue was framed by the Court below :-

(3.) Both the parties submitted that they do not want to lead any evidence whatsoever before the Court and they will argue on the preliminary issue on the basis of the facts available on record. Next date was fixed. Plaintiff moved an application under O.18, R.17-A C.P.C. and prayed that he wants to lead evidence to prove documents submitted in the court. The prayer was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the documents were in the know of the plaintiff and he has also produced them in the court below at the time of the framing of the preliminary issue. He could have said that he will like to lead the evidence after the framing of the issues, but on the contrary he submitted that he does not want to lead any evidence. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under R.17-A where the party satisfies the court that after the exercise of due diligence if any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the party was leading the evidence. The court may permit that party to produce that evidence at the later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. This rule authorises the court to permit a party to produce evidence on the fulfilment of the following conditions :- (i) was not previously known. (ii) could not be produced in spite of due diligence on his part.