Bishan Ram vs Surinder Singh

N.K. Sodhi, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.1996 passed by the trial court allowing the defendant''s prayer for additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

After the parties had concluded their evidence and the arguments were partly heard the defendant filed an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence by producing the original will dated 26.12.1988 as according to the defendant the same had earlier been misplaced and was found only when some family partition took place on 22.5.1996. The prayer made in the application was that he be allowed to produce and prove the same by examining the attesting witnesses. Notice of the application was given to the plaintiff who opposed the same.

The preliminary objection raised was that the application had been filed at a belated stage and that an application for additional evidence had earlier been partly allowed and, therefore, the second application was not maintainable. On a consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the will sought to be produced by the defendant could have a bearing on the controversy between the parties and even though the prayer was made at a late stage the same was allowed subject to payment of costs. It is this order which has been challenged in the present revision petition.

It was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court grossly erred in law in allowing the application when arguments in the case had been partly heard. It was also contended that the defendant had not satisfied the court that after the exercise of due diligence he could not produce the will at the time when he was leading his evidence and therefore, he should not be allowed to produce the same thereafter. He has relied upon the decisions of this court in Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal and Anr., 1991 P.L.J. 201, Smt. Sarto Vs. Dhan Ram, and Karan Singh v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur 1994 (1) R.R.R. 658, in support of his contentions.

I have heard counsel for the parties and find that there is no merit in the revision petition.

It is true that the will has been produced at a belated stage but that by itself should not be a ground for not allowing the defendant to prove the same particularly when it has a bearing on the merits of the case and is relevant for the issues to be decided. It must not be forgotten that all rules and procedures are meant to advance the cause of justice and not hamper the same. A relevant piece of evidence if left out at the time when the party concerned was leading his evidence should not be shut out merely because of delay when the opposite party can be adequately compensated by the award of costs. This is precisely what the trial court has done in the present case. In my opinion, the court has not committed any irregularity much less any illegality warranting interference by this court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on their own facts and do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.