RAM DASS NADAR Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has moved this application under Order XVIII, Rule 17a of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC for brief) read with Regulations 13 (2) and 68 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991 (the Regulations for brief) framed under Sec.66 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief ). Thereby the applicant wants to lead evidence in support of his case at trial. The respondent has filed his reply and has resisted this application on several grounds.

(2.) It would be quite proper to look at certain facts giving rise to the present application. The applicant has filed one compensation application under Sec.12b of the MRTP Act for claiming compensation in the sum of Rs.6,25,600/- from the respondent under various heads charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36a thereof. The respondent has filed his reply and has resisted the compensation application on several grounds. The issues were framed on 14th November, 1998. It appears that in view of the application made by and on behalf of the respondent an additional issue regarding the maintainability of the proceeding was framed on 28th August, 1998. It appears that at that time it was stated by the applicant that he proposed to rely only on documents to prove his case and no oral evidence was to be led. He was, therefore, directed to issue the notice of admission/denial of documents which was to take place at 2.00 p. m. on 5th October, 1998. The respondent was also directed to file the list of witnesses alongwith affidavits within a period of six weeks with a copy to the applicant. It appears that the admission/denial of documents could not take place on 5th October, 1998 but was done on 14th October, 1998. The respondent admitted only two documents at Sl. Nos.1 and 5 out of total eight documents. It appears that the matter was listed for final arguments on 27th November, 1998. No final arguments took place as the respondent had not filed his list of witnesses. The respondent was given time to file his list of witnesses and documentary evidence within two weeks before the next date of final hearing with a copy to the applicant. The case was adjourned to 26th February, 1999 for final arguments. The present application was moved by the applicant on 26th February, 1999.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Kumar for the applicant has submitted that, in view of the relevant provisions contained in Order XVIII, Rule 2 of the CPC, an application for additional evidence can be entertained at any stage of the proceeding even at the stage the case is fixed for arguments. In support of his submission he has relied on a recent ruling of the High Court of. Punjab and Haryana in the case of Mam Raj V/s. Smt. Sabiri Devi and Ors., 1999 AIR(P&H) 96 and also on a ruling of the Orissa High Court in the case of Alekh Pradhan and Ors. V/s. Bhramar Pal and Ors., 1978 AIR(Ori) 58. As against this learned Advocate Mr. Barqui for the respondent has submitted that the present application is under Order XVIII, Rule 17a of the CPC and not under Order XVIII, Rule 2 thereof and it is not open to the applicant to take recourse to the relevant provisions contained in Order XVIII, Rule 2 of the CPC. Besides, runs the submission of Mr. Barqui for the respondent, having agreed not to lead any oral evidence, it could not be open to the applicant to turn round at this stage and to pray for leading evidence in this case.