🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Sh. Jes Raj, Personal Astt., Pb. State Ind. Development Corp. Ltd., Sector 17-a, Chandigarh Vs Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation ltd. and Others

Case No: Civil Revision No. 3513 of 1989

Date of Decision: Feb. 20, 1990

Acts Referred: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 18 Rule 17A

Hon'ble Judges: N.C. Jain, J

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: S.P. Thukral, for the Appellant; A.C Jain, for the Respondent

Final Decision: Allowed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

N.C. Jain, J.@mdashThis revision petition has been directed against the order of the trial Court dated, 15-11 -1989 declining the production of

additional evidence By way of additional evidence the Plaintiff wants to prove certain documents which have already been brought on the record of

the case. The counsel for the Petitioner has argued that since the documents which have already been brought on the record of the case, had not

been admitted, necessity of filing the present application has arisen and it is contended that had the Defendants admitted the documents, the Plaintiff

would not have filed an application for proving the documents. While the trial Court has rightly observed that there was no direction of the Court in

its order dated 18-10-1988 requiring the Defendants to admit the documents, it cannot be denied that the counsel for the Defendants did

undertake to admit or deny the documents. It remains undisputed before me that uptill now the documents have neither been admitted nor denied.

2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that Petitioner''s application for additional evidence deserves to be allowed

Within the ambit of Order XVIII, Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, while interpreting Order XVIII, Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil

Procedure, it has been held in Mohinder Singh v. State of Boryana, (1987) 92 P. L.R. 393 that production of such documents should be allowed

which are not of doubtful authenticity It has further been held that pro visions of Order XVIII, Rule 17-A C.P.C, are not to be interpreted in a

manner which defeats the cause of justice. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court in Mohinder Singh''s case (supra). Once

the documents have been produced on the record of the case and they have not been admitted the production of additional evidence of those very

documents would advance the cause of justice rather than defeat the same. In view thereof, following the dictum of of law laid down in Mehinder

Singh''s case (supra) a good case for production of additional evidence has been made oat.

3. In the light of the observations made above, Petitioner''s application for leading additional evidence is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 750/-

as costs. After the Plaintiff produces his entire evidence, the Defendants would have the right to rebut the same.