An order allowing additional evidence after the close of the case is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. In Title Suit No. 3 of 1964, pending in the Court below the plaintiffs-opposite party in this Civil Revision application closed their evidence before the 4th March, 1970. By that time, the defendants-petitioners had also examined, as it appears, all their witnesses, but certain documents were filed on the 4th March as also on the 5th March, 1970. On the 4th March, 1970, the planitiffs filed a petition for examination of a handwriting expert in support of their case that a disputed document which had already been tendered in evidence did bear the signature of one of the defendants. In that regard, the defendants had already examined an Expert while they were examining their witnesses.

The learned Munsif disposed of that petition by his order dated the 5th March, 1970. This order was passed after recording that the defendants had closed their case when they had produced and got exhibited all their documents on the 5th March, 1970. He allowed the prayer made by the plaintiffs stating in his order that the plaintiffs ought to have taken this step earlier and the grounds given by them in their petition dated the 4th March, 1970, were not correct. Yet taking the view that it was in the interest of justice to do so, he acceded to their prayer on payment of Rs. 100 as costs to the defendants. The defendants have come up in revision to this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has committed an error of jurisdiction in allowing the prayer of the plaintiffs. Reference was made to the procedural law contained in Rule 2 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the "Code". In reply learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the Court had powers under Order XVIII, Rule 2 of the Code to allow the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence or, in any event, the Court had inherent power to do so. Reliance was placed upon an unreported decision of mine in Bihar State Board of Religious Trust V/s. Manmohan Das, (Civil Revn. No. 1192 of 1966, decided on 13-12-1966 (Pat,)). It was further strenuously submitted on behalf of the opposite party that in any view of the matter, the order in question is not a case decided within the meaning of Sec.115 of the Code to give jurisdiction to this Court to interfere with the order.

3. In the case of Bihar State Board of Religious Trust V/s. Manmohan Das, Civil Revn. No. 1192 of 1966, D/- 13-12-1966 (Pat.) aforesaid, I had said:

"Keeping the principle of law thus crystallised by the Supreme Court on reference to its earlier decision in view, I am of the opinion that in certain circumstances, although, I must reiterate, these circumstances will be few and far between the trial Court can allow a party to a suit to adduce further evidence at any stage of the suit before the judgment is pronounced, and even after the close of the evidence by that party. I must hasten to add that such power is not to be lightly exercised it has got to be sparingly exercised under very special circumstances. And, one of them surely would be if the court were satisfied that the party, in spite of due diligence, had no knowledge of that evidence when he was closing his evidence."

I should have thought that the order of the Court below perhaps could not be supported on the basis of the principles enunciated by me in Civil Revn. No. 1192 of 1966, D/- 13-12-1966 (Pat). But that would have only meant that the order was erroneous and a further question would have arisen as to whether the error committed by the Court below was an error in relation to the exercise of its jurisdiction. I do not propose to detain myself on this question any longer as I am satisfied that the impugned order is not a "case decided", and to confer jurisdiction upon this Court under Sec.115 of the Code, not only there should be an error of jurisdiction in the impugned or but the order must be a case decided within the meaning of Sec.115.

4. Numerous cases of th