Sukhdev Raj v. Pt. Ramesh Chander

Sukhdev Raj son of late Shri Dewan Chand r/o H.No.93/18, Deol Nagar, Jalandhar City, .....Appellants Versus Pt. Ramesh Chander son of late Shri Dewan Chand r/o H.No.93/18, Deol Nagar, Jalandhar City, aged about 60 years also r/o BC 78/10, Main Bazar, Bhargo Camp, Jalandhar and others .....Respondent Present: Mr. Amandeep Soni, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) -.-

The civil revision is against the dismissal of an application for reopening the case and receiving additional evidence. The trial Court had dealt with the issue referring to the fact that the case had proceeded after fullfledged trial at the stage of arguments. After plaintiff's argument was over, defendant was trying to file the document. The Court relied on the fact that amendment in CPC excised Order 18 Rule 17 to hold that the party must have had a strong reason for non-production of a document and document which is sought to be produced at belated stage cannot be received. Learned counsel relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court which holds that Courts are not without power under Section 151 CPC to admit document for the appropriate reasons and in the interest of justice.

Learned counsel says that this document, which was sought to be filed, was with reference to the revenue entries that explained the basis of mutation and the plaintiff, who had already secured a benefit of C.R. No.4027 of 2012 (O&M) -2- mutation through a Court, was trying to contend that the Will itself was not true. There is a reference about the Will even in the mutation and therefore, the document was absolutely essential. As necessary as the document could have been, the party is expected to set out an appropriate reason as to why the document could not have been produced at an earlier time and if the Court has come to the conclusion that there has been no proper explanation given, I do not think that it is a matter that requires an intervention at the revisional stage under Article 227 of the Constitution. Unless there is a patent illegality or a gross injustice shown, there will be no cause for interference.