Simarjit Singh vs Sarabjit Singh

Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—Counsel for the petitioners seeks only one opportunity to tender revenue papers in evidence by way of additional evidence which are already on record, stating that the same could not be produced earlier in their evidence though the same are necessary for adjudication of the matter wholesomely and effectively. Law cited by the lower court as Inder Singh Vs. Smt. Sandokhi Devi, is not applicable to the facts of the case as in the present case, evidence in affirmative of the plaintiff was not closed by the court but was volitionally concluded by the plaintiff and later at the stage of production of rebuttal evidence, application for additional evidence was made which has been rejected.

Notice to the respondents is not being issued to avoid delay.

Even otherwise, when evidence is essential, there is no bar qua its reception at any stage even if the stage is of conclusion of arguments. In Charan Singh Vs. Ajit Singh etc., the proposition as to whether the court becomes functus officio to interfere in an application for additional evidence once the arguments in a case have been heard was discussed and answered, relevant portion whereof for ready reference is appended as below:

"3. Firstly, I would deal with the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It cannot be said as a proposition of law that once the arguments in a case have been heard, the Court is functus officio to interfere in an application for additional evidence. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, need not detain me any further because this question was discussed and dealt with in some length by this Court in the case of Chandgi Vs. Mehar Chand and Others, wherein the Court held as under:-

"The judgment is a recognised stage of proceedings in a suit. The legal connotation of judgment is the declaration of final determination of rights of the parties in the matter before the Court. Even in common parlance the expression ''judgment'' is understood to put an end at least at some stage to the lis between the parties. Hearing of a suit would have to be understood in the context, where the Court fixes a date for some acts to be done by either parties, while the stage or a later stage of a suit would be a stage till the pronouncement of judgment when the Court is functus officio of the case before it. No hearing is contemplated under the provisions of the Code between the stage of hearing and reserving the case for order and pronouncement of judgment, but still these two are the independent stages of the proceedings in a suit and hence the party would have a right to file an application for leading additional evidence prior to the pronouncement of the judgment under the provisions of Order 18, Rule 17-A of the Code."

In other words, if the expression hearing of suit and stage of suit are treated to be synonymous then the necessary result is that either of the expression used by the legislature is redundant, ineffective and unmeaningful. As observed by Hon''ble the Chief Justice Patanjali Shasty in the case of Aswini Kumar Ghosh and Another Vs. Arabinda Bose and Another, it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside word in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application on circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute.

On the application of the well settled principles of law governing the subject, I find it very difficult to hold that the judgment is not a recognised stage of the proceedings in a suit. Section 2(a) of the Code defines the judgment as statement given by the judge of the grounds of decree and order. The legal connotation of judgment is the declaration or final determination of rights of the parties in the matter before the Court. Even in common parlance the expression ''judgment'' is understood to put an end at least at some stage to the lis between the parties Hearing of a suit would have to be understood in the context, where the Court fixes a date for some acts to be done by either parties, while the stage or a later stage of a suit would be a stage till the pronouncement of judgment when the Court is functus officio of the case before it."

Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has gone to the extent of holding that adducing of additional evidence is permissible even when arguments had been advanced.

Further, in view of the law laid down in Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar Versus Harbhajan Kaur and others 2010(2) ICC 169 (P&H) and the fact that the documents are already on the file and the same could not be tendered earlier in affirmative evidence by the petitioners-defendants but this evidence is necessary for complete and competent adjudication of the matter in controversy.

In view of this position and without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the petition is disposed of with permission to the petitioners to lead additional evidence before the lower court subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to be paid to the opposite side. However, it is made clear that only one opportunity would be granted by the lower court for this purpose and that too only for tender of documents without examining any witness thereof.