IMPORTANT POINT
Civil courts have the inherent authority to permit the introduction of additional evidence at any stage of the proceedings if a party demonstrates that such evidence could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, ensuring the pursuit of truth and justice.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides finally at the admission stage.

2. The petitioners are original defendants who are assailing the order dtd. 30/7/2021 passed below Exhibit-111 in Regular Civil Suit No.329/2012 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded, thereby permitting the respondents/plaintiffs to examine a witness namely Mr. Laxman Mohan Mahabale.

3. RCS No.329/2012 is filed by the respondents for possession and damages. It is contended by them that the document purchase deed rewritten on 11/9/1999 is forged and bogus. The claim of the respondents is contested by the petitioners.

4. Oral evidence was led by the respondents and evidence closure pursis was submitted. Thereafter the petitioners led their evidence and filed pursis. The matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the respondents submitted application (Exhibit-111) for leading additional oral evidence. The application is contested by the petitioners. By the impugned order, it stands allowed holding that in order to decide controversy between the parties and to have fair opportunity, the application deserves to be allowed.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents protracted the matter for three years. Both the parties led evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. He submits that the impugned order is without jurisdiction because the powers under Sec. 18 or under Sec. 151 could not have been invoked. He would submit that the contentions of pressure and threats being exerted on the witness concerned are baseless and not substantiated. He further submits that it is not necessary to examine the witness and application is submitted with an oblique motive to fill up the lacuna.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that recalling of the witness at such a stage is impermissible. For that purpose, he relies upon the following judgments:

(i) Ashok Lalta Pandey and Another Vs. Zarina Abdullah Janai and Others in Writ Petition No.8808/2015 dtd. 30/1/2018.

(ii) Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Store, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 1.

7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is specific issue no.3 framed in the suit and the burden is caste upon the plaintiff to prove that the document in question is forged. He further submits that due to compelling circumstances the witness concerned could not be offered for cross-examination. The petitioners have constantly exerted pressure not only on one Mr. Laxman Mahabale but also on Pundlik Bhusawale. According to him despite due diligence, the witness concerned could not be brought in the witness box. He would submit that it is not a case of recalling of witness or producing any documentary evidence at the fag end of the trial.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment in the matter of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344.

9. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. My attention is drawn to issue no.3 which is as follows:

"03. Do plaintiffs prove that the defendant in collusion with Uttam Dhondiba Telang has prepared bogus, forged and manipulated purchased deed on 11/9/1999 of suit house in his favour?"

The burden is upon the respondents to prove the purchase deed re-written on 11/9/1999. I have carefully gone through the application (Exhibit-111) which is for permission to examine Mr. Laxman Mahabale. A prayer is not for either recalling of any witness or for producing documents on record.

10. It is an admitted position that both the parties have adduced evidence and evidence closure pursis are filed on record. At the fag end of the trial., application (Exhibit-111) appears to have been presented. It is relevant to notice that Rule 17A of Order XVIII stands omitted.

11. It has been brought on record by way of affidavit-in-reply by the respondents that the witness concerned was als