Jasbir Singh vs Jai Chand and Another

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, whereby application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The petitioner closed his evidence in affirmative. Thereafter, defendants led their evidence. Having realized the fact that defendant No. 2 has denied the signatures on the agreement dated 02.07.2003 vide which the defendants acknowledged their liability to pay back loan amount, an application for leading additional evidence was moved for comparing the admitted signatures of defendant on the bank account in the Oriental Bank of Commerce with the disputed signatures on the agreement. Vide impugned order dated 04.12.2012, learned trial Court has dismissed the application. Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Although it is settled principle of law that parties are required to lead evidence in affirmative specifically when the said fact is denied in the written statement. However, the Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as taking into consideration the fact that for just decision of the case, some evidence is required to be examined, may allow leading of such evidence by way of additional evidence. The court can order additional evidence although after the amendment the provisions of CPC in this regard have been deleted, but the power u/s 151 CPC can be exercised in view of judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), . To allow additional evidence always depends upon the facts of that case and in case it is found that the ends of justice will be served, application for additional evidence can be allowed even at the stage when the evidence of parties have been closed. Reference in this regard can be made to Rajesh Bedi Vs. Sh. Dhar Bedi, . In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the signatures on the agreement have been specifically denied in cross examination of defendant No. 2, the ends of justice would be met if petitioner is granted one opportunity to complete his evidence at his own risk and responsibility, subject to heavy costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 45,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Rohtak and Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the respondents-defendants.

For the reasons stated above, the instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.12.2012 is set aside. Liberty is granted to the respondents to rebut the additional evidence if they still feel aggrieved against the order.