Vijay Kumar vs Vinod Kumar

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Vijay Kumar has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 21.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna thereby dismissing plaintiffs application Annexure P-1 for additional evidence to prove photostat copy of compromise mark A by way of secondary evidence.

Plaintiff in the plaint pleaded alleged compromise dated 01.10.2001 between the parties. The plaintiff after leading his evidence closed his evidence on 12.10.2010. Thereafter, plaintiff moved application Annexure P-1 on 08.11.2011 i.e. after more then a year, alleging that the original compromise has been lost and therefore, permission be granted to lead additional evidence to prove the compromise by secondary evidence. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court by impugned order, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

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

During pendency of the suit, defendant had moved application for directing the plaintiff to produce the alleged original compromise. The plaintiff on 05.03.2005 made statement that the original compromise was not traceable and had been lost. Thereafter the plaintiff led his evidence to prove the alleged compromise on the basis of photostat copy thereof and closed his evidence on 12.10.2010 and thereafter moved application Annexure P-1 on 08.11.2011. It is thus manifest that at least on 05.03.2005, it came to pointed notice of the plaintiff-petitioner that the original compromise was not traceable and had been lost. Consequently it was at that stage that the plaintiff could have sought permission to lead secondary evidence of the compromise. However, the plaintiff did not do so. On the other hand, the plaintiff after leading his evidence, closed the same on 12.10.2010 and then again waited for more then a year before moving application Annexure P-1 on 08.11.2011. The said application has, therefore, been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

It is also worth mentioning that the plaintiff has not even specified in the application as to what additional evidence has to be adduced by him. Blanket permission for leading any evidence as additional evidence could not be granted to the plaintiff. A party seeking permission to lead additional evidence has to specify the same but it has not been done in the instant case.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is thus found to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.