Gurmeet Singh vs Ajmer Singh and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against an order of the trial court dated May 22, 1987, whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17-A Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code), was dismissed.

The defendant-petitioner moved the application under Order XVIII Rule 17A of the Code for permission to produce the handwriting expert and the record-keeper of The Tribune as the witnesses on his behalf. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs made a statement that he had no objection if the defendant was allowed to examine the witness, i.e. the record keeper of The Tribune to prove the advertisement about the missing of Harbhagat Singh, but objected to the production of the handwriting expert to compare the signatures of Harbhagat Singh on the alleged gift deed. The trial Court dismissed the 1 application filed by the defendant on the ground:

Now the defendants have again come up with this application for summoning the handwriting expert to compare the signatures of Harbhagat Singh the attesting witness of the alleged gift deed. This fact was well within the knowledge of the defendant that the order attesting witness of the alleged gift deed was not supporting this version and defendant was having sufficient time earlier to move such application. But the defendant did not do so and now the defendant has filed this application at the fat end of the case, which in my opinion, is not justified and has been filed by the defendant just to prolong the case.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the said attesting witness Harbhagat Singh was missing, the defendant wanted to prove his signature on the alleged gift deed as such, which, according to the Learned Counsel, was necessary to prove the gift deed.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. It has not been shown that the additional evidence now sought to be produced is material one. There was no cogent explanation why it was not produced earlier. In any case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction; hence the revision petition is dismissed with costs. The parties have been directed to appear in the trial court on 9.1.1989.