N.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 27.1.2003 passed in Suit No. 583 of 1995, Shiv Kumar Tripathi v. Abdul Rahman and Anr. by which Application 133 (C) moved by the defendant seeking permission to file one document i.e., the voter list in support of his contention, was rejected on the ground that the suit was fixed for final hearing of the argument and the stage for filing the document has already gone long back. The learned trial court has also referred in the impugned order that the Order XVIII, Rule 17 (A) has been deleted by Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1999 ( Act No. 46 of 1999) and the validity of this Amending Act with regard to the deletion of Order XVIII, Rule 17 (A) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 189. It is against this order that the present revision has been preferred.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist at the admission stage.
(3.) It appears that the case was fixed for argument when the defendant moved an application for filing one document. Order XVIII, Rule 17 (A) which was existing prior to the amendment of the C.P.C. Amending Act, 1999, is as follows : "17 (A) Production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence.--Where a party satisfies the Court that, after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was leading his evidence, the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just.";