Avtar Singh vs Varinder Kaur

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.10.2012 by which application filed by the plaintiff to lead additional evidence at the stage of rebuttal and arguments has been declined.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to receive 1/4th share out of the total maturity value of MIS Nos. 146803, 146524, 147183 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,02,000/- and Rs. 98,000/- respectively being the son of deceased Babu Singh @ Babu Ram Negha, who was holder of the MIS, along with proforma defendant no. 6 and also sought permanent injunction to restrain respondents no. 3 to 5 from encashing the amount of MIS more than their share. It is submitted that Babu Singh was married twice. Out of the first marriage, plaintiff and defendant no. 6 were born and out of the second marriage, defendants no. 3 to 5 were born. The plaintiff filed the suit on 03.02.2006, whereas the written statement was filed by the defendants on 14.03.2006. The plaintiff adduced his evidence taking about 5-6 years as his evidence was closed on 14.01.2012, whereas the defendants closed their evidence in a short span of time on 02.08.2012. When the case was listed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, the plaintiff filed the present application on 09.10.2012 in order to produce on record certain certificates by way of additional evidence. The application was contested and, ultimately, the impugned order has been passed dismissing the application.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court has dismissed his application on two accounts; firstly the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC has been omitted and secondly there is a delay in filing the application. It is submitted that though Order 18 Rule 17A CPC has been deleted but by applying Section 151 CPC, opportunity is being granted by this Court and in this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Phuman Singh and Another Vs. Hazara Singh and Others On the issue of delay, it is submitted that the cause of justice should not be sacrificed and the Court should focus mainly on the real justice to be imparted to the parties and relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of The Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. M/s Markanda Sugar Traders and another,

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the application has rightly been dismissed by the Court below because nothing has been mentioned by the petitioner in the application for additional evidence as to what had stopped him in producing the documents in his evidence for which he had taken as much as 5 years as the written statement was filed by the defendants on 14.03.2006 and evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 14.01.2012.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after examining the record, am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

From the facts and circumstances, the question which arises for consideration is as to in what circumstances the application for additional evidence should be allowed? After the pleadings of the parties are over and issues are framed, opportunity is given to the parties to lead their oral as well as documentary evidence. The Trial Courts are generally magnanimous in granting adjournments to the parties to lead their evidence which is apparent in this case as the written statement was filed by the defendants on 14.03.2006 and the plaintiff closed his evidence ultimately on 14.01.2012. It can be safely presumed that even if the issues were framed somewhere in the year 2006, the plaintiff had taken almost 5 years in completing his evidence. Although it has been said time and again that the Court should be liberal to grant opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence in order to find out the truth, but at the same time the parties cannot be allowed to regulate the proceedings of the Court at their whims and fancies. In order to appreciate the act and conduct of the petitioner, the application filed by him for the purpose of additional evidence has to be examined. In this application, all that has been said is that the plaintiff could not produce the documents, now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, before closing of the evidence due to oversight. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before me that these documents were handed over to his counsel, but he did not produce them in the evidence. The concept of additional evidence is to allow the parties to lead that evidence which was not within his knowledge or has come to his knowledge after the evidence has been closed and goes to the root of the case, but here is a case where the plaintiff not only had the knowledge of the documents which he wanted to produce in evidence but also handed over the same to his advocate, as stated by him, and took almost 5 years to complete his evidence, but did not produce these documents in evidence for the reasons best known to him which is now being labelled as "oversight".

In Phuman Singh''s case (supra), this Court has held that though Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC has been deleted but invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 151 CPC, the additional evidence can be allowed. Similar view has been expressed in Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills''s case (supra). There is no difficulty insofar as invoking of Section 151 CPC is concerned, but it has to be used in the aid of a vigilant litigant and not in the aid of a litigant who is casual and trying to regulate the proceedings of the Court as per his own choice.

From the facts and circumstances, I have found that since the petitioner has been thoroughly careless in conducting his case and is trying to regulate the proceedings of the Court at his own whims and fancies, therefore, the evidence which was in his possession cannot be allowed to be led by way of additional evidence after his evidence was closed after taking 5 years in that process.

Resultantly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the well considered order of the Trial Court and hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.