Satnam Singh vs Atam Parkash Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff-Satnam Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition to challenge order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the trial Court thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-4) filed by the plaintiff for additional evidence. Plaintiff has alleged that plaintiff and his family members are exclusive owners of the suit property which is their private property. Defendant has alleged that the disputed property is a public street and Gram Panchayat has constructed drains on both sides of the said street.

The plaintiff in application (Annexure P-4) alleged that the defendant has produced in his evidence report dated 21.06.2001 of Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) by examining concerned official to depict that the disputed site is a public street. The plaintiff now wants to examine Secretary and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat with record to prove that it is a private street.

The defendant-respondent by filing reply opposed the application and controverted the averments made therein. However, unfortunately reply filed by the defendant has not been placed on record of this revision petition.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 14.08.2013 has dismissed application (Annexure P-4) filed by the plaintiff who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is still going on for remaining evidence of the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff should be permitted to lead proposed additional evidence. Reliance has been placed on judgments of this Court in the case of Ram Singh versus Pirthi and others, 1996(3) RCR (Civil) 619 and Jeeto @ Smt. Manjit Kaur Vs. Union of India (UOI), . It was also submitted that in spite of repeal of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the CPC (in short, CPC) regarding additional evidence, the Court still has inherent power u/s 151 CPC to permit additional evidence, as held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI),

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. It is correct that the Court u/s 151 CPC has inherent power to permit additional evidence in appropriate case. In the instant case, however, the plaintiff petitioner has failed to make out sufficient ground to permit him to lead proposed additional evidence. The plaintiff had all the opportunity to lead evidence in support of his case. The plaintiff has led and closed his evidence. Thereafter, the defendant led his evidence. Now the plaintiff, by proposed additional evidence, cannot be permitted to fill lacunae in his case. The plaintiff has obtained information (Annexure P-6) under the Right to Information Act to the effect that there is no record in the Gram Panchayat regarding construction of the disputed street. However, merely on the basis of this information, which is negative in nature, petitioner cannot be permitted to lead proposed additional evidence. If there had been some positive record depicting the street to be the private property of the plaintiff, then the position might have been different. Judgments in the cases of Ram Singh (supra) and Jeeto @ Manjit Kaur (supra) are not attracted to the facts of the case in hand. For the reasons aforesaid, application filed by the plaintiff for additional evidence has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court because the plaintiff has failed to make out sufficient ground for permitting him to lead proposed additional evidence. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.