JETHA RAM Vs. GIRDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner dated 23. 7. 1993 by which three applications of the petitioner were dismissed presumably under Order 1. 3 Rule 2 CPC. By order dated 16. 11. 1993 Hon'ble Milap Chandra, J. allowed the revision on a cost of Rs. 200/-but since the order was passed without hearing the respondents, the order was recalled on 27. 5. 1998. then the revision petition was dismissed and after its restoration it was put up for hearing.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) SO far as other two applications are concerned, they relate to summoning of some file. In muffassif courts some times wrong provision of law is mentioned in applications by which the courts are not to be misguided and have to see the correct provisions. Where a party satisfied the court that after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was reading his evidence, the court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. (See Order XVIII Rule 17-A CPC ). As found from the record the learned trial Judge took long time himself in deciding the applications as such they could not be rejected on the ground that they were filed late.