Arjun Singh vs Smt. Rajender Kaur and Ors

Mahesh Grover, J.—The Petitioner is aggreived by the order dated 17.9.2009 by which his prayer for additional evidence has been declined.

The Petitioner is the Defendant in a suit preferred by the Respondent. The dispute inter se between the parties is regarding the shares of the holdings. During the pendency of the suit the Respondent Rajender Kaur and Inder Pal filed another suit in which they claimed that they were owners of 977 square yards of the suit property. This suit was however withdrawn.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that plaint which was filed has a bearing on the facts of the 3. case as the averments pleaded in that suit are contrary to what the Respondents have set up in the instant suit. The Court has declined the prayer of the Petitioner on the ground that such a material is not germane to the controversy.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 states that he has no CR No. 5757 of 2009 (O&M) 2 objection if the prayer of the Petitioner is allowed.

No one is present on behalf of the remaining Respondents despite the fact that they have been duly served.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the matter in the entirety, I am of the considered opinion that no prejudice will be caused if the additional evidence which the Petitioner wants to produce is allowed. Petitioner merely wants to produce and prove the plaint which was filed subsequent to the filing of the instant suit.

The power of the Court to permit a person to adduce additional evidence is amply wide, fettered only by an arbitrary exercise.

Having regard to the fact that some plaint has been filed subsequent to the filing of the instant suit wherein the Respondents have raised some pleadings having a bearing on the instant suit, I deem it appropriate to accept the instant revision petition and direct that Petitioner be given only one opportunity to produce additional evidence which he so wishes to produce.