Atun Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) IN Surjan Singh vs. Paras Ram & Ors., : AIR 1995 P&H 120, it was held that unless and until the party Satisfies the Court that after due diligence had been exercised, the document could not be produced earlier at the proper stage, he cannot be permitted to lead such documentary evidence subsequently at a later stage when the document was already in existence and was known to the party concerned at the earlier stage. Where the plaintiff -petitioner had relied upon the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence but had not produced copies thereof alongwith the plaint or during the time allowed to him to produce his evidence, he was not entitled to claim production thereof later on because if he had exercised due diligence, he could have produced them earlier. Court's satisfaction is necessary about the due diligence by the parties who desires the Court to exercise discretion in the matter to establish that if due diligence had been exercised, the document could not have been produced earlier i.e. the existence of the documents were not known when the party led the evidence. By filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner -plaintiff has challenged the order dt. 14.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer whereby the application under order 18 Rule 17 read with Order 7 Rule 14 CPC filed by the petitioner for taking one copy of the voter list on record in Civil Suit No. 49/2011 titled as Bajrang Lal vs. Tulsiram & Ors. had been dismissed. The petitioner has not sought any relief against the non -petitioner No. 12 to 14 so their names may be deemed to be deleted. Other non -petitioners No. 1 to 11 & 13 are being represented through their counsel Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh. Both the parties have expressed their consent to finally argue the matter at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) I have heard final arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in the matter. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the non -petitioners in the case of Suraj Singh (supra) is fully applicable in the matter. The civil suit is pending in the trial Court for the last so many years. After taking five adjournments at the stage of final argument, the petitioner -plaintiff desires that he should be allowed to reopen the evidence. Perhaps he wants to play the second inning. He wants to produce the certified copy of the voter list in his evidence at this very late stage. The lower Court has given the finding that the plaintiff -petitioner himself wants to delay the trial of the suit and due to his dilatory tactics, his application under Order 18 rule 17 read with Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was rejected by the trial Court. I am fully convinced with the reasoning given by the trial Court in its order dt. 14.3.2013. This Court cannot allow any party to abuse the process of the Court for some ulterior motive. If the plaintiff wants to delay the trial, then this Court cannot help him. In the result, the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves no favour from this Court which is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Copy of this order be sent to the lower Court immediately.;