( 1 ) THE civil revision petition has been filed against the order in I. A. No. 201 of 1980 in O. S. No. 24 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Alampur. The respondent filed the above suit, O. S. No. 24 of 1979 against the petitioner for the recovery of certain amounts due. The suit is part-heard. At that stage, the respondent filed the above I. A. requesting the lower court to permit him to adduce further evidence. Thereon, the lower Court passed the order reopening the suit, "in the interests of justice. "

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, sri Sridhar Rao raised two contentions. The first contention is that Order 18, rule 17-A, civil Proredure Code, provides the power for the lower Court to reopen the suit. But the lower Court exercised its inherent power under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. In the face of the specific provision referred to above, the inherent power cannot be exercised. Secondly, it is contended that the respondent- plaintiff did not assign any reasons in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to reopen the case and that the lower Court did not give any reasons for reopening the case. Therefore, the order is illegal.

( 3 ) WITH regard to the first contention, it is no doubt true that in the order it is stated that the petition was filed under section 151, civil Procedure Code, and that the lower court passed the order reopening the suit enabling the plaintiff to adduce further evidence.

( 4 ) IT is now well-settled position of the law, that mere quotation of a wrong provision of law does not vitiate the order so long as there is specific provision provided in the statute. The specific provision referred to above is order 18, rule 17-A, Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, it can be presumed that the lower court not only exercised its power under its inherent jurisdiction but also under Order 18, rule 17-A, Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the first contention is not tenable. Accordingly, it is rejected.

( 5 ) WITH regard to the second contention, it is profitable to reproduce Order 18, rule 17-A, hereunder:"17-A. Production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite of diligence. . . Where a party satisfies the Court, that, after the exercise of due diligence any evidence was not within his knowledge 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 is. It consists of two limbs. The first limb is that the party has to satisfy the Court that after exercise of due diligence the evidence now proposed to be adduced was not within his knowledge and therefore he could discover that evidence later and on that account he should be permitted to adduce the evidence. That condition has no application to the facts in this case. It is not the case of the respondent, that inspite of his exercise of due diligence the, evidence was not within his knowledge, as such he could not adduce the evidence on the earlier occasion. But the case comes within the second limb of the order namely, he could not produce the evidence when he was leading the evidence. Though the second limb is silent regarding the obligation on the part of the respondent to give reasons for non-production of the evidence at the earlier occasion, it is implicit under this cause that he should give reasons and the lower court should be satisfied of the reasons assigned for non-production of the relevant evidence on the earlier occasion. It would be more appropriate for the plaintiff to state reasons for not producing the evidence. It is also necessary that the Court should give reasons in support of the order so that the Appellate or revisional Court can test the reasoning of the court which weighed for reopening the case. In the instant case, the learned district Munsif has stated in the, order that he reopened the case "in the interest of Justice. "it can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document