Garja Singh vs Gram Panchayat, Harbanspura

G.C. Garg, J.

This revision is directed against the order dated 14.11.1991 of the trial court whereby application moved by the defendants for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

Plaintiffrespondent filed a suit for declaration against the present petitioners. After the parties concluded their evidence in affirmative, the defendants moved an application under Order 18, Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to produce an order/letter dated 25.2.1988 and endorsement dated 25.7.1988 by way of additional evidence. It was averred that the said document was already on the file and the same could not be got exhibited due to oversight. It was further stated that production of the said document in evidence was necessary and it will not delay the proceedings in the suit. Prayer made in the application was opposed by the plaintiff by alleging that the application was not bona fide and had been filed just to prolong the litigation. Trial Court on a consideration of the matter, dismissed the application by the order under revision. Hence, this revision at the instance of the defendants.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, I am of the opinion that this revision deserves to succeed. The application for leading additional evidence was moved by the defendants after they had closed their evidence on 24.10.1991. The impugned order was passed on 14.11.1991 and the application for additional evidence was dismissed on the ground that the same was filed at a very belated stage and that the documents sought to be produced were already on the file and, therefore, the contention that these documents could not produced due to oversight has no merit. The reasons given by the trial court do not seem to be correct. There is hardly a difference of 20 days between the date of closure of oral evidence by the defendants and the date of the impugned order. It is thus clear that the application for additional evidence was moved immediately after the closure of defendants'' oral evidence perhaps on that very day. In the situation it also cannot be said that the said application was moved with a view to delay the proceedings in the suit. It is also not disputed that the document sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was already on the file and it is a categorical stand of the defendants that the same could not be got exhibited in evidence due to an oversight. Furthermore, the said document is stated to be nothing but an official letter, the production of which in evidence is stated to be quite necessary for proper and just decision of the controversy raised in the suit. It remains undisputed before me that uptil now the said document has neither been admitted nor denied. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the document sought to be produced in evidence by way of additional evidence is an order passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Patiala under Section 99(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act and the same thus cannot be said to be of doubtful authenticity. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as noticed above and seeking support from the judgment in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) P.L.R. 393, I accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned order and allow the petitioner''s application for leading additional evidence subject to payment of Rs. 1000/ as costs. Costs shall be paid through a crossed demand draft favouring the plaintiffGram Panchayat.

Since the proceedings were stayed, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 29.8.1997. The suit being of the year 1988 shall now be disposed of according to law within four months.