- (1.) THE challenge, in this revision petition, preferred by Malkiat Singh son of Bant Singh -petitioner -plaintiff No.2(for brevity "the plaintiff"), is to the impugned order dated 01.03.2014(Annexure P -4), by virtue of which, the trial Court has allowed the application(Annexure P -2) for additional evidence moved by respondents -defendants Nos.15 to 19 and 21 to 24.
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
(3.) EX facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, the trial Court committed a legal mistake to permit the pointed defendants, to allow additional evidence at this stage, particularly when they have already closed their evidence vide statement(Annexure P -1), is neither tenable nor the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar(D) through LRs Versus Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 2 RCR(Civ) 508and of this Court in case Jagir Chand Versus Jagsir Sigh, 1999 4 RCR(Civ) 291, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of those cases, it was observed that the main purpose of recalling of witness is to enable the trial Court to clarify any doubts, which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties and such witness cannot be recalled to fill -up the omissions in the evidence of a witness, who has already been examined and additional evidence cannot be granted without proof of due diligence. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant controversy, for the reasons mentioned here -in -below. As is evident from the record that, initially, Balwinder Singh (plaintiff No.1) and petitioner -plaintiff No.2 -Malkiat Singh sons of Bant Singh, have instituted the civil suit against the defendants, for a decree of declaration, with a consequential relief of injunction. During the pendency of the civil suit, the defendants moved an application(Annexure P -2) to lead additional evidence. The plaintiff refuted their prayer and filed the reply(Annexure P -3). It is not a matter of dispute that the defendants want to produce certified copy of the application, zimni orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and acknowledgment dated 22.01.1991, by way of additional evidence. These documents, now sought to be produced, are certified copies and are already in existence. The trial Court has exercised its discretion to allow the application of the defendants for additional evidence and came to the definite conclusion that the indicated documents would be helpful for deciding the present case in a just manner. The documents are merely the orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, which will not cause prejudice to any party, if the same come on record. Moreover, the trial Court has already burdened the defendants to pay a cost of Rs. 800/ - for causing delay to produce the pointed documents.;