Ram Nath vs Lal Singh

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 27th January, 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Hoshiarpur. By this order, the learned Civil Judge, has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC

for bringing on record the enquiry proceedings dated 2nd December, 1996 by way of additional evidence. Notice of the petition was issued to the

respondents.

Shri Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition against the order

rejecting the application for additional evidence was not maintainable u/s 115 Civil Procedure Code. He submitted that this point could be

challenged by the petitioner-defendants in accordance with law if any occasion arises to carry the matter in regular first appeal In support of his

submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdev Singh and others Vs. Mehnga Ram and another, .

The learned counsel further submitted that even on merits, the petition was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner could not satisfy the learned

trial Court as to why he could not produce the said evidence on 11th December, 1996 before closing his evidence particularly when the enquiry

was conducted on 2nd December, 1996. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Karam

Singh alias Gurdial Singh v. Smt. Gurmej Kaur 1994(1) Rev.L.R. 71.

Shri Parveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submitted that the revision petition against the order

dismissing the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A, CPC was maintainable in terms of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court

in Kaura Ram v. Govind Ram 1979 C.L.J. 82. Learned Counsel further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdev

Singh (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case, as that case, pertained to an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC and

not under Order 18 Rule 17-A, Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel further submitted that the enquiry report sought to be produced by way of

additional evidence was essential to determine the real controversy and as such the learned trial Court was not right in rejecting the application of

the defendant for additional evidence. In support of this submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Ram

Singh v. Pirthi and Ors. 1997(2) R.C.R. 108.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. As

regards the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the revision petition is not maintainable against the

impugned order, I do not find any merit in this contention. A Division Bench of this Court in Harminder Kaur v. Godha Ram I.L.R.1979 (1) 147,

held that a revision petition would He against an interlocutory order only if it determines or adjudicates some right or obligation of the parties in

controversy. Relying on this judgment, another Division Bench of this Court in Kaura Ram (supra), held that a revision petition u/s 115, CPC

would lie against the order rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A, CPC for permission to adduce additional evidence. Keeping in

view the Division Bench judgment of this Court, I am of the opinion that the revision petition against the order rejecting the application filed under

Order 18 Rule 17-A, CPC is maintainable. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gurdev Singh''s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the

present case, as in that case, the Supreme Court was concerned with an application under Order 41 Rule 27(b) Civil Procedure Code. In that

case, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the appeal was at the final hearing before the learned Additional District Judge and since the

learned Additional District Judge had allowed the application of the appellant filed under Order 41 Rule 27(b) Civil Procedure Code, the High

Court should not have interfered in with the order while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 115, CPC as the said order was within the jurisdiction of the

appellate Court. This order could have been challenged in accordance with law if an occasion had arisen to carry the matter in second appeal.

Before the learned appellate Court only arguments were to be heard and matter was at the final hearing of the appeal. It may be noted here that

under Order 41, Rule 27(b), if the Appellate court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce

judgment, it can allow production of additional evidence but that is not provided under Order 18, Rule 17-A.

Under Order 18, Rule 17-A, Civil Procedure Code, if a party satisfied the Court that after the exercise of due diligence any evidence was not

within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was leading his evidence, the Court can permit that party to

produce that evidence at a later stage. In the present case, the petitioner-defendant wanted to bring on record the enquiry proceedings conducted

on 2nd December, 19%. From the impugned order, it is clear that the enquiry was conducted on 2nd December, 1996 and in the grounds of

revision, it was stated that the fact of conclusion of enquiry came to the knowledge of the petitioner after 11th December, 1996 when the evidence

had already been closed on the said date. Since the petitioner came to know the fact of conclusion of the enquiry after 11th December, 1996, I am

of the opinion that the application of the petitioner for additional evidence should have been allowed by the learned trial Court. The decision of this

Court in Karam Singh''s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in

the present case, the petitioner came to know of the enquiry proceedings after his evidence had already been closed.

In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27th January, 1997 passed by the learned trial Court is

set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 18, Rule 17-A, CPC stands allowed. It is, however, made

clear that the petitioner-defendants will be given only one opportunity to bring on record the enquiry proceedings. With this order, the petition

stands disposed of.