Ram Chander vs Saheed Ahmed

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Challenge in this revision is to the impugned order whereby the petitioner''s prayer for leading additional evidence and framing of additional issues was declined.

I have heard Shri B.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep Vermani, learned counsel for the respondents.

The plaintiff (now petitioner) filed a suit for possession and declaration and also for permanent injunction against the defendantrespondents. The suit is pending before the trial Court since 1996. As it was contested, issues arising from the pleadings of the parties were framed. Both the parties have led evidence. The petitioner has filed an application for leading rebuttal evidence and framing of additional issues, which has been dismissed.

The case set up by the petitioner is that the sale deed dated June 27, 1984 is a forged and fabricated document. It was allegedly executed on June 27, 1984. Har Piari, Sri Chand and Kale died prior to the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, their thumb impressions on the sale deed have been forged. The plaintiffpetitioner seeks to produce their death certificates by way of additional evidence. Similarly, the thumb impressions of Banti and Khiliya on the sale deed are forged. Their thumb impressions have been obtained vide order dated 15.1.1996 of judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nuh in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 221/95 and the same have been verified by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. By way of leading additional evidence, the plaintiffpetitioner also wants to get their thumb impressions compared with those on the sale deed.

Shri Sandeep Vermani, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contested the case of the petitioner on the ground that this application has been filed only to delay the matter further, which is pending adjudication since 1996. Further, in order to bring the case within the ambit of Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffpetitioner was required to prove that the evidence was not within his knowledge or with due diligence he failed to produce it. It has nowhere been mentioned in the application that with due diligence, the petitioner could not produce the evidence which he seeks to produce by way of additional evidence. In this regard, he placed reliance on Surjan Singh v. Paras Ram, 1995(1) RRR 22 and Karam Singh v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur, 1994(1) RRR 658.

It is wellsettled that technicalities of law should not hamper the cause of justice. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents have no bearing on the facts of the case. The nature of documents sought to be produced by leading additional evidence is such that they cannot be fabricated. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Surinder Kumar v. Prem Lata, 1997(2) Civil Court Cases 512 : 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 161 (P&H) and Man Raj v. Sabiri Devi and others, 1998(3) Civil Court Cases 23 (P&H) wherein it was held that production of a document cannot be disallowed merely on the negligence of a party and his counsel. In Bishan Ram v. Surinder Singh, 1998(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 566 : 1998(2) 119 PLR 182, it has been held that production of a relevant document should not be shut out merely because of delay, when the opposite party can be adequately compensated by the award of costs.

As regards the framing of additional issues, it will not cause any prejudice to the defendants.

In view of the aforesaid, this revision is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 4000/. The trial Court is directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to lead additional evidence. In case he fails to produce the evidence on the date to be fixed by it, then the Court will be at liberty to pass appropriate order, closing his evidence. Further, the trial Court will give equally effective opportunity to the defendantsrespondents to rebut the evidence led by the petitioner by way of additional evidence.