Shree Maha Laxmi Dal Mill and Another vs Kishan Chand Sita Ram and Others

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 12-3-1997 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (SD) Siwani (Hissar). By this order, the learned Additional Civil Judge has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs u/s 18, Rule 17-A read with Section 151, CPC for bringing on record Form-A through additional evidence.

Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has drawn my attention to Order 18 Rule 17-A, CPC and vehemently argued that a party can be allowed to examine additional evidence only after that party has satisfied the Court that after exercise of due diligence any particular evidence could not be produced by that party. He submits that in the present case, the learned trial Court has not given any reason to this effect that the plaintiffs despite due diligence could not produce Form-A at the time when they were given opportunity to examine their evidence. He further submits that in the written statement this point was raised that the plaintiffs firm is not a registered firm and as such the plaintiffs were required to meet this point at the earliest opportunity when they were to examine their own witnesses. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Buta Singh v. Gurmit Singh 1994 (2) PLR 276. The learned counsel further submits that it is now well settled that the opportunity to produce additional evidence should not be granted as a matter of routine but it should be granted only after the party satisfies the court that despite due diligence the party could not examine the evidence which is sought to be produced Under Order 18, Rule 17-A. CPC. In support of this submission the learned counsel placed reliance on two judgments of this Court reported in Suraj Bhan v. Sohan Lal 1991 PLJ 201 and Daya Kaur v. Risala 1996 (1) PLR 168

Mr. Sudarshan Goel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs, however, submits that in the present case plaintiffs had already brought on record Form-C (registration certificate of the plaintiffs firm) and the plaintiffs have also given a statement on oath that the plaintiffs firm was a registered firm and the person who gave the statement was a partner of that firm. He submits that since in the present case Form C is already on record and one of the partners had given a statement on oath that the plaintiffs firm is a registered one, for the proper adjudication of the case, the plaintiffs have been rightly permitted to bring on record Form-A which contains only list of partners. He further submits that in an identical case where even Form C was also not on record, this Court allowed the plaintiffs to bring on record Form A and Form C both in an application filed Under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151, CPC. The said case is reported as Bal want Singh v. Saudagar Singh 1991 (1) LJR 491.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not call for any interference. The learned trial Court has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Balwant Singh (supra) and has also found that the facts in the case of Balwant Singh and the present case are identical. Rather in the case of Balwant Singh (supra) Form C and Form-A both were permitted to be brought on record in the appellant proceedings whereas in the present case Form C is already on record and only Form A is to be brought on record.

Since in the present case Form C is already on record and one of the partners of the firm has already stated on oath that firm is a registered one and only Form A has been permitted to be brought on record by way of additional evidence, the decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.