AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,750/- on the foot of the hand note against the legal heirs i.e. wife and minor children of the deceased, S. Venkateswararao has been filed by the petitioner. The respondents-defendants denied the execution of the hand note by the deceased. The evidence in the suit was concluded by the petitioner on 31st December, 1996, After conclusion of evidence, the petitioner has approached the Trial Court under Order 18 Rule 17A C.P.C. to examine the brother of the deceased. S. Janardhan who is acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the deceased to prove the disputed document.
Order 18 Rule 17A - C.P.C. is to the following effect:
"Where a Party satisfies the Court, that after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was leading his evidence, the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just."
Apparently, the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application to adduce further evidence before the Trial Court, docs not speak mat the petitioner had no knowledge about the existence of brother of the deceased Venkateswararao at the time when he was leading evidence in the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that in the interests of justice, the petitioner should have been permitted to lead further evidence by examining the brother of the deceased. Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. specifically lays down the condition when the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage. But, the fact as to whether any particular evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was leading his evidence, has not been urged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.
In view of the above circumstances, there is no illegality or error in the order of the trial Court.
This C.R.P. lacks merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed.