An interlocutory application to reopen the case and record further evidence after the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment is not permissible.

( 1 ) THE learned Single Judge has referred this matter to the Division bench vide order dated 8-10-2001 in view of the conflicting decisions in smt. Sujatha v Indian Bank, Sadashivanagar Branch, Bangalore , following the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v Mohindra kumar and Others , and the subsequent decisions in Lakxminarayan enterprises, Kolhapur v Laxminarayan Textile, Belgaum and Other and U. Suresh Mallya v Okazaki Sekizai Company Limited. As per the directions dated 10-2-2004, the matter has come up before us.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant for a judgment and decree for a sum of rs. 19,562. 82 together with interest at 21% per annum. The arguments were heard finally on 12-6-2001. The case was posted on 20-6-2001 for judgment. On 18-6-2001, the respondents filed I. A. No. III under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'cpc') seeking to recall the order dated 30-5-2001 and to reopen the plaintiffs side to lead further evidence afresh. Another application I. A. No. V was filed under order 18, Rules 1 and 2 and under Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission for the plaintiffs representative to lead further evidence. The xvii Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore allowed the applications by a common order dated 28-7-2001. Against that a revision petition was filed on 16-8-2001. On 7-9-2001 notice was issued with stay till next date of hearing on 19-9-2001. The matter was adjourned to 8-10-2001. Now, the matter has been referred to and placed before us as stated.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that even when the case is posted for judgment an application for reopening the case is maintainable, which is clear from the amendment Act which came into force in 1976 wherein clause (4) of order 18, Rule 2 introduced reads as follows:" (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage". The learned Counsel submits that the position is clear as per the decision in Laxminarayan Enterprises case, supra.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits no evidence can be recorded when the case is reserved for pronouncement of judgment in view of the decision of the supreme Court in Arjun Singh's case, supra, wherein it is held that once the matter has been finally heard and posted for judgment, the Court has only to pronouncement the judgment, and therefore, the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Laxminarayan Enterprises, supra, that the application can be filed at any stage of the proceedings even after the learned Judge has reserved the matter for pronouncing the judgment is not correct. He also submits that the Trial Court has erred in distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun singh's case, supra. He also submits that clause (4) of Order 18, Rule 2 has been deleted, which clearly shows that it is not the intention of the legislature to permit filing of the interlocutory application, even after the arguments are heard and the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, and therefore, such interlocutory applications cannot be entertained.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner contended that though the name of witness was in ths list filed, but for non-availability of address and for the reasons best known to plaintiff-respondent, the witness was not examined and left over and thereafter the plaintiff-respondent cannot be permitted to call that witness and to lead further evidence at later stage. The copy of the order sheet filed along with the revision petition reveals that on 22-9-2000 the plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1, and Exs. P. 1 to P. 8 were got marked and the matter was posted for further examination-in-chief of P. W. 1 on 21-10-2000, and from ti