Sukhpal Singh vs Sowinder Singh etc.

Swatanter Kumar, J.—Application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the CPC filed by the defendant-applicant, Sukhpal Singh for leading additional evidence was dismissed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 4.3.1997, which has been impugned in this revision.

A suit for joint possession was filed by the plaintiffs Sowinder Singh and others against Paramjit Singh and others for the land in question. After evidence was closed by both the parties, the present application under Order 18 Rule 17. A of the CPC was filed by the applicant- defendant on the ground that they wish to produce a hand writing expert to compare the signatures of the plaintiffs, as they had no occasion earlier to produce the hand writing expert.

This application was contested by the plaintiffs. According to them, the application did not satisfy any of the ingredients of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the C.P.C. and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

At the very outset, it needs to be noticed that the present suit was for joint possession in respect of the land in dispute. The case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants had illegally entered into the possession on the strength of the sale deed allegedly executed by Mohinder Singh as the attorney of the plaintiffs, who was in possession of the land as tenant under the plaintiffs. As such the plaintiffs denied the existence of any sale deed and stated that the power of attorney has been fabricated by Mohinder Singh to frustrate the rights of the plaintiffs. The sale deed was termed as bogus, fabricated and sham.

This suit was contested by the defendants, who said that defendant No. 1 had been validly appointed as attorney and there was no fraud or forgery as alleged in the light of these facts, the plaintiffs had led their evidence and had closed their evidence. Defendant No. 1 cross-examined the witnesses of the plaintiffs and their hand writing expert. The defendants also led their own evidence on the basis of their pleadings and had closed their evidence. Apparently, now after the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, they moved the present application, which stands dismissed and rightly so by the learned trial Court.

Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the cases of Punjab Kaur and Others Vs. Gurcharan Singh and Others, , Bakhshish Singh @ Bakhshi Vs. Tara Singh, and Ran Singh Vs. Pirthi and Others, does not farther the case of the present petitioner. The reason is that in none of the above authorities, their Lordships have enunciated any general principles of law but had allowed the application keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. Provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. necessarily impose an obligation upon the court to apply its mind whether the ingredients of said rule are satisfied in the given case or not. Further, the Court must examine whether the application is not mala fide and is not intended to merely delay the proceedings before the court. It is also appropriate for the court to examine whether the party had acted with due diligence or the application was a result of mere negligence on the part of the applicant. In other words, the applicant was trying to take advantage of his own wrong and negligence.

In the present case, the parties were on specific issue and the pleadings raised a definite controversy with regard to forgery of documents. In fact that was the only case pleaded by the plaintiffs for seeking the relief of joint possession from the Court. The defendants not only cross- examined all the witnesses of the plaintiffs and the hand writing expert produced by them but also examined their own witnesses in support of their case and voluntarily closed the evidence. Prima facie, I am of the considered view that the present application lacks bona fide and is primarily intended to delay the proceedings before the learned trial Court, which has practically reached the stage of arguments. Furthermore, no such reasonable cause has been stated in the application, which could satisfy the basic ingredients underlying the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 A of C.P.C.

Consequently, I find no merits in this revision and the same is dismissed in limine. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Interim Order dated 13.5.1997 is hereby vacated. Learned Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law.