Jaspal Singh vs Manjit Singh and others

S.P. Bangarh, J.—Petitioner filed application under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC for taking coercive action against the respondents for willfully disobeying the ex-parte injunction order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Court, whereby, the parties were directed to maintain status quo in the matter of damaging/demolishing any portion of the building of the tenanted suit shops and also in the matter of possession, thereof, till 17.09.2006. This application was opposed by the respondents and issues were framed. Even the evidence was closed by the petitioner. After the closure of evidence by the petitioner, he moved application for permission to lead additional evidence for production of four photographs of the rented premises. But that application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.10.2013 (Annexure P-5).

Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner who is the applicant before the trial Court has come up with this revision petitioner with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for acceptance of his application for additional evidence, that was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the latter may be granted only one adjournment for purpose of production of photographs on the record of the trial Court, that were also produced in the civil suit. He also contends that the ex-parte order of status quo dated 30.08.2006 was made absolute by the trial Court vide order dated 28.11.2006 till the disposal of the main suit. He further contends that the respondents may be compensated with costs for causing inconvenience to them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Rajesh Kumar v. Mangat Rai and others; 2012 (2) PLR 334; wherein, it was held that Order 18, Rule 17A was omitted by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002, as it was felt that unnecessary applications were being filed primarily to delay the conclusion of the trial. It was further held that this does not take away inherent power of the Court to do substantial justice between the parties and also allow any material evidence to be produced by them unless it is actuated with mala fides or is due to gross negligence on their part. Revision petition was allowed subject to costs Rs. 5000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon Prem Lata Vs. Ram Sarup, passed by this Court, wherein, it was held that necessary documents per se admissible in evidence must be allowed to be produced, may be subject to costs. It was also held that law of procedure is handmaid of justice. It must be used to advance the cause of justice and to avoid causing injustice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Jagdish Kumar Vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur, passed by this Court, wherein, additional evidence was allowed by the trial Court and the order of trial Court was upheld.

Though order 18 Rule 17A CPC no longer exists in the Code of Civil Procedure, yet Section 151 of the CPC can be invoked in certain cases, as also in this case, as the petitioner only wants to prove four photographs of the rented premises. These photographs have already been produced and proved in the main suit of permanent injunction, that was filed by the petitioner.

The notice of this revision petition need not be issued, as it will cause further delay. If the respondents are prejudiced by this order, they can approach this Court for setting aside of this order. They can be compensated with costs for causing inconvenience to them by the applicant by closing his evidence without examining witness for producing and proving the four photographs ibid.

Resultantly, revision petition is allowed; impugned order is set aside and the application (Annexure P-3) for additional evidence is allowed and the applicant is accorded only one adjournment to lead evidence regarding proving and production of four photographs mentioned in the application on payment of Rs. 5,000/-, as costs to the respondents, that shall be a condition precedent for leading the additional evidence. Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges.