M.M.KUMAR,J - (1.)THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for setting aside order dated 12.1.2005 passed by the Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent for adducing the additional evidence to prove that the plaintiff-respondent firm has been a proprietorship concern of one Kaushal Kishore. The plaintiff-respondent had filed Civil Suit No. 98 on 13.5.2002 for recovery of Rs. 3,60,000/- (Rs. 2,45,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,15,000/- as interest) on the basis of a pronote and a receipt dated 31.5.2000. There was no issue framed on the question whether the plaintiff- respondent is a partnership or a proprietorship concern. After both the parties have closed their evidence and the case was fixed for arguments, an application under Section 151 for adducing additional evidence was filed to prove the issue that the plaintiff-respondent is a sole proprietorship firm. The application has been allowed by the impugned order. The operative part of the order reads as under :-
"After hearing, I am of the considered view that the case of the plaintiff is based upon the fact that he is the sole proprietor of M/s. Des Raj Sham Lal and this fact has been denied by the defendant on the grounds that the same is not within the knowledge of the defendant and further it has been averred by the defendant that the plaintiff must (be) put to strict proof. Out of the pleadings of the parties, no issue was framed regarding this issue as to whether the plaintiff firm is proprietorship firm or not. If the plaintiff wants to lead evidence so as to show to the Court that plaintiff is proprietorship firm, then such type of evidence can be allowed to be produced on record. It will rather (be) helpful in bringing on record the clear picture. The defendant will also be given opportunity to cross (cross-examine ?) the witnesses. No prejudice will be caused to the defendant by applying the case law cited by the counsel for plaintiff and holding that case law so referred by the counsel for defendant is not applicable to the case in hand. The application is allowed, subject to the payment of Rs. 500/- as costs, as the application has been moved at very belated stage."

(2.)MR . Tajender Joshi, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that there is no power with the Civil Court to permit adducing of additional evidence for filling up lacunas left when the plaintiff-respondent was adducing his affirmative evidence. The learned counsel has further argued that the application was moved at a stage when the arguments in the suit had been addressed which is obviously a misuse of the process of the Court and such a course could not be permitted by law.
Mr. Manish Singla, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A were added by amendment made in the Civil Procedure Code in 1976 and after deletion of Rule 17-A, the position which was prevalent before 1976 has come back as has been opined by the Supreme Court in para 21 of the judgment in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2002(4) RCR(Civil) 786 (SC) : AIR 2003 Supreme Court 189. According to the learned counsel, once the aforementioned position is clear, then the law prevailing prior to 1976 has to be kept in view and for that proposition, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Prithipal Singh v. Baldev Singh, 1974 R.C.R.(Rent) 46 : 1973 PLJ 556 and argued that earlier to 1976, Section 151 used to be available for granting permission to adduce additional evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no bar against entertaining an application for additional evidence at any stage even after the arguments have been heard. In support of the aforementioned submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in the case of Chandgi v. Mehar Singh and others, 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 354 (P&H) : 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 280 (P&H).

(3.)AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their rival submissions, I am of the view that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order exercising jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court itself has felt the necessity of adducing of additional evidence because it would be helpful in bringing on record a clear picture. Once such an opinion has been expressed by the Court, then the power to permit additional evidence can be traced to Rule 18 Order 2 Explanation 1 as has been added by the local amendment applicable to Punjab and Haryana. The aforementioned Explanation 1 is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:-
"Explanation I. - Nothing in this rule shall affect the jurisdiction of the Court, of its own accord or on the application of any party for reasons to be recorded in writing, to direct any party to examine any witness at any stage. Explanation II. - The expression witness" in Explanation I shall include any party as his own witness. - (1.11.1966)."
It is, thus, obvious that there is ample power with the Court to permit adducing of additional evidence either on its own accord or on an application of any of the parties subject to the condition that good reasons are required to be recorded. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there are valid reasons recorded for passing the impugned order as adducing of additional evidence has been found to be helpful in bringing on record the clear picture and the same is necessary for expeditious disposal of the case. Even otherwise, the defendant-petitioner is unlikely to suffer any prejudice which is the basic condition for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadri, 2002(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 182 : 2002(1) SCC 379 has taken the view that this Court is to exercise jurisdiction in case of manifest injustice. No such manifest in justice is shown.