Bakhshish Kaur, J. - (1.) The challenge in this revision is to the impugned order dated September 4, 1992, passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed.
(2.) Succession certificate was issued in favour of the respondent on 28.11.1996 by the Sub Judge First Class, Patiala. The petitioner had applied for the revocation of the succession certificate by way of filing an application under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act. The petitioner as well as the respondent had closed the evidence when the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code was filed.
(3.) Now, adverting to the provisions envisaged under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code, it reads as under:- "Order 18 ule 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, my 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." ;