- (1.) This is a plaintiff's petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated the 24th of March, 1973, rejecting the farmer's application under rule 2 of order 13 of the Code for permission to lead additional evidence.
(2.) The suit out of which this petition has arisen was instituted on the 16th of February, 1971 and issues therein were framed on the 16th of June, 1972. The plaintiff closed his evidence on the 4th of December, 1972, and the defendant closed his on the 15th of February, 1973. When the case was posted for arguments to the 22nd of February, 1973 on which date the application in question was made with the prayer that the plaintiff be allowed to prove certain documents, some of which were already on the record. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that it was highly belated and that the plaintiff was negligent in not proving earlier the documents which he wanted to adduce in evidence through the application.
(3.) Mr. M. S. Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner states that all the documents which he wants to prove consist of correspondents between the parties. On the 21st of November, 1975, when the case was first taken up, he even made an offer to his adversary that he was prepared to put all the documents which he wanted to prove to the other party for admission or denial and that he would for ego his claim to opportunity for proving those documents which were not admitted This was an offer which no reasonable person would have objected to with any plausibility but it was not accepted. As it is, I am firmly of the view that the lowers Court was not justified in rejecting the application of the plaintiff for additional evidence in the circumstances of the case. As stated by Mr. Jain, the documents consist of correspondence between the parties and there is no question of any of them being forged. For the late production of the documents and for permission to prove them at a later stage, as also for his negligence for not proving them earlier, the plaintiff could have been mulcted with costs. The interests of justice were not served by the rejection of the application in so far as the relevant documents are concerned.;