Dharam Pal vs Janak Kishore and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This revision is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, dated 5.5.1998. Vide, the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the applicant-plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff, Dharam Pal had filed a suit for permanent injunction on the plea that he was owner in possession of the land in question and the defendants were trying to forcibly dispossessed him from the property in question. Khasra in dispute was 268 and with the intention to prove the demarcation of the said Khasra Nos. 268, 270 and 272, the plaintiff filed the present application to place on record and prove the attested copy of the demarcation report of these Khasras, conducted by Shanti Bhushan by way of additional evidence. The application was opposed by the defendants and the learned trial Court dismissed the application.

The bare reading of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Court has declined the application for valid and proper reason. During the pendency of the suit, there was hardly any occasion for the application-plaintiff to move to the Collector for demarcation and get the demarcation report prepared through a private person i.e., Shashi Bhushan, who was no longer in service under the Collector. Certainly, the proper course for applicant was to move the learned trial Court for appointment of a Local Commissioner, if he was so advised. The suit is pending before the learned trial Court since 1989 and the plaintiff had led his evidence and the application was filed at the belated stage as the report itself was prepared on 14th March, 1998.

The very relevancy of this document and its nature itself is questionable. At the very outset, it needs to be noticed that the plaintiff has rendered no plausible explanation as to why such report was not placed and proved when the plaintiff was leading its evidence at the very fist instance. Additional evidence cannot be permitted in a mechanical manner. Firstly, the applicant is obliged to satisfy the basic ingredients of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the CPC and still to show to the Court that the application is bonafide and does not amount to abuse of process of Court. Furthermore, it should not be an attempt to prolong the litigation before the Court.

In the present case, the applicant has failed to show that either of the conditions aforestated are satisfied. The application to say the least is not bonafide. The applicant has certainly not been able to show as to how despite due diligence he could not produce the said evidence at the first instance. The relevancy of this document and the manner in which it has been prepared, prima facie, causes a suspicions on the very authenticity of the document.

Consequently, I find no merit in this petition. The impugned order does not suffers from any error of jurisdictional or otherwise, which would justify interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.