Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 725
2005(8) Supreme 457
Supreme Court of India
R.C. Lahoti, CJI., D.M. Dharmadhikari & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Balwant Singh —Appellant
versus
Darshan Singh & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2923 of 2005
Decided on 26-4-2005
Important point
Order allowing prayer for addition evidence u/o 18 Rule 17A could not be set aside by High Court in revision only on ground that on the day High Court took up the matter Rule 17A was deleted from CPC.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 151 and Order 18 Rule 17A -Application for additional evidence-The same was allowed-In revision High Court rejected the application on the ground that by the time the High Court heard and decided the revision, Rule 17-A above said itself had stood deleted-Not proper- The validity of the order passed by the Trial Court should have been decided with reference to the power which vested in the Trial Court on the date of passing of the order by the Trial Court and not by the High Court-The view to the contrary taken by the High Court held erroneous and set aside ( para 3 ).
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. In the suit pending in the trial court, during the course of trial, the plaintiff-appellant moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence. By order dated 13.2.2001 the application was allowed subject to certain terms. The defendant-Respondent 1 preferred a revision in the High Court which has been allowed vide order dated 28.2.2003 solely on the ground that by the time the High Court heard and decided the revision, Rule 17-A abovesaid itself had stood deleted from the text of the Code.
3. Rule 17-A was inserted by Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 1.2.1977. This rule was in existence on the date on which the trial court passed the order. However, the rule has been omitted from the body of Order 18 by Act 46 of 1999 which amendment came into force with effect from 1.7.2002. The validity of the order passed by the trial court should have been decided with reference to the power which vested in the trial court and was exercised on the date of passing of the order by the trial court and not by the High Court. The view to the contrary taken by the High Court is erroneous and cannot be upheld.
4. The order dated 13.2.2001 permitting the plaintiff to tender additional evidence was an order passed by the trial court in exercise of its discretion which order would not be liable to be interfered with ordinarily in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. We do not find that the trial court did not have the jurisdiction to pass the order which it did or acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while passing that order.
5. The impugned order of the High Court dated 28.2.2003 is set aside and the order dated 13.2.2001 passed by the trial court is restored.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No orders as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
****************
