This revision is directed against the order dated 3.2.93 passed by Munsiff No, 2, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 178 of 1985 refusing to allow that petitioner to adduce evidence on the basis of the prayer made in Annexure 1 petition filed on behalf of the petitioner (defendant).

2. The case of the petitioner is that the opposite party instituted a suit (MS No. 178 of 1985) in the Court of the Second Munsiff, Silchar, against the petitioner and proforma opposite party No. 10 for eviction and for recovery of arrear of rent and compensation.

3 Assessment Register of Silchar Municipality for the year 1980-81 in connection with the suit premises, was filed by petitioner at the time of filing documents. However, the certified copy of the sale deed was filed only after recording of evidence of both sides. Thereafter, the suit was axed for argument. Meanwhile, Annexure 1 petition was filed on 3.2.93, stating, inter-alia, that the certified copy of the Municipal Assessment Register though filed in time, but through inadvertence the said document was not proved. Regarding certified copy of the sale deed, it was elated that the petitioner came to know about it after the closure of the evidence. The Munsiff by the impug­ned order dated 3.2 92 rejected the prayer holding that if such prayer was allowed it would only help the petitioner to fill up the iacuna. Accordingly, the prayer for further evidence was rejected. Hence the present petition.

4. Heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party. Mr. Lahiri submits that the copy of Assessment Register was filed in time, but through inadvertence no evidence could be led with regard to the said document and the document was not proved in accordance with law. According to Mr. Lahiri the petitioner came to know about the sale doe ! at a later stage and therefore, it could not be filed. H" submits that the Munsiff failed to exercise his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. He further submits that Order 18 Rule 17A empower a Court to allow any party to produce evidence at a later stage if conditions mentioned in the said Rule are fulfilled. Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by refusing to allow the petitioner to produce the said evidence even though the conditions necessary to invoke the power under the Rule exist.

5. Rule 17A has been introduced to permit production of additional evidence at a later stag;. Main object of this Rule is to further justice, so that for mere technical ground the parties should not suffer. Under the Rule, if the Court is satisfied that after exercise of due diligence any evidence was not within the knowledge of a party or could not be produced by him at a time when that party was leading his evidence it may permit that party to produce such evidence at a later stage. The existence of any of the two conditions in the said Rule 17A may confer the jurisdiction to a Court to allow tie party to produce evidence at a later stage. This is definitely not a case that the documents, i.e Assessment Register, was not within his know­ledge. This is a case where the petitioner wished to produce evidence, but could not produce at the time when he was leading his evidence. The ground mentioned in the petition is that through inadvertence the evidence could not be led in respect of the Assessment Register and the document could not be marked.

6. Mr. Singh, on the other hand, submits that this is not a fit case to invoke the power under Rule 17A of Order 18 inasmuch as, it is not a case that the petitioner had no knowledge about the existence of the Assessment Register and it could not be produced. Therefore, the conditions necessary for the purpose of invoking the power under Rule 17A of Order 18 being absent, the Court had no authority and jurisdiction to allow the petitioner to produce the evidence at a liter stage, i.e. after closure of the evidence and at the time wren the argument was to be heard. B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document