Raj Kumar vs Improvement Trust City Hansi and others

S.D. Bajaj, J.—Heard. In this civil revision the prayer made by the petitioner is that he may be allowed to produce and prove the registered sale deed dated 30th January, 1980 of a neighbouring plot to establish the identity of the plot in dispute. Learned trial Court declined the request vide its assailed order of 17th December, 1987.

The request is fully covered by the observations made in Jaswant Singh v. Tarsem Lal 1986 P.L.J. 672 and Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana (1987-2) 92 P.L.R. 393 which read, "The prayer of the plaintiff to produce certain documents by way of additional evidence under Order 18 rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, was declined on the ground that the requirements of the said rule were not satisfied. May be that the rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. The provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code could not be interpreted in a manner which defeats the cause of justice and for any negligence on the part of a party the opposite party, can then be compensated with costs. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the documents sought to be produced were not of doubtful authenticity." In this view of the matter, the revision petition is accepted the assailed order of the learned trial Court dated 17th December, 1987 is set aside and the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed to produce the additional evidence on payment of Rs. 500/- as additional cost to defendant-respondent. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25th July, 1988.