Tara Chand vs Randeep Singh

Ashok Bhan, J.—Plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) has filed the present revision petition against the impugned order vide which the application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence stands dismissed.

Shortly stated the facts are that the petitioner, filed a suit for permanent injunction in June 1990 with a prayer that the defendant-respondent (Hereinafter referred to as the respondent) be restrained from interfering in his possession as lessee except in due course of law. This plaint was later on amended. It was stated in the amended plaint that possession was with the Receiver and the plaintiff should be restored back the possession.

Respondent contested the claim of the petitioner asserting that the petitioner had relinquished the possession of the land in dispute in kharif 1985 and thereafter the respondent was in possession of the suit land. In an interim application filed, which was contested upto the High Court, it was observed by this Court that the suit be disposed of within a period of four months. Plaintiff examined nine witnesses and closed his evidence after tendering the documents. Thereafter defendants examined their evidence. On the date when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, petitioner filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. for leading additional evidence. Prayer made was that he be allowed to prove the signatures on the receipt and the written statement filed by the defendant before the Tehsildar, Panipat in connection with correction of Khasra Girdawari. According to the averment made in the application, the respondent had denied the signatures at the time of cross examination and as such it was necessary to summon the hand writing and finger print expert to prove these documents. It has also been averred in the application that the petitioner was an illiterate person and he could not trace the admitted signatures of the respondent earlier but the same having been traced now; he be permitted to get the admitted signatures of the respondent compared with his earlier signatures.

Reply to the application was filed by the respondent who contested the same. Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner; aggrieved against which the present revision petition has been filed.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The only ground taken by the counsel for the petitioner to press this revision petition is that the petitioner could not produce the evidence which he wants to prove by additional evidence earlier because he was an illiterate person and could not get hold of the admitted signatures of the respondent earlier. Respondent having denied his signatures in his cross examination he be permitted to summon the hand writing expert to compare the disputed signatures with his admitted signatures. I do not find any substance in this submission. Plaintiff has to prove his case at the first instance and if the petitioner had any doubt regarding the genuineness of the signatures of the respondent then he should have at the first instance produced an expert to prove the falsity of the signatures of the respondent. Petitioner could have produced an expert while leading his evidence. Since he failed to produce the hand writing expert while leading his evidence, it cannot be said that he acted with due diligence. Since the petitioner failed to act with due diligence at that stage, he cannot be allowed to lead additional evidence at the belated state specially when the suit pertains to the year 1991.

For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24.1.1955.