A court has wide discretion to allow additional evidence under Order 18, Rule 17-A of the CPC, even at a late stage, if the ends of justice require it.

1. In this revision petition, C. M. No. 6697-CII of 1994 was filed by the respondent No. 1 praying for vacation of the stay of further proceedings granted by this Court vide order dated 1-6-1993.

2. While hearing this application, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, arguments on the merits of the revision itself were heard for final disposal as the matter is pending for a considerable period in this Court.

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff Mam Raj had filed a suit for declaration on 30th October, 1981 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Karnal to the effect that he is owner in possession of 4/9th share of the land measuring 265 kanals owned by Kirpal Singh. He claimed to be the adopted son of Kirpal Singh on the basis of unregistered Will dated 7th April, 1981. Kirpal Singh died on 8th April, 1991. This suit was contested by Smt. Sabiri Devi and others stating that she is the widow of Kirpal Singh and the entire land measuring 265 Kanals belonging to Kirpal Singh has been inherited by her on the basis of Will dated 13-3-1981 in her favour. Sabiri Devi who claimed to be an old and illiterate lady of 80 years and not keeping good health stated that taking advantage of her physical condition Mam Raj had played a fraud and had got some documents signed from her. She signed the said documents on the plea that the property was being given to her and her children and she was subjected to a fraud as even the counsel who allegedly engaged on her behalf, Shri Bir Singh, Advocate, in fact was working with the counsel for the plaintiff, Mam Raj, Shri T. L. Garg, Advocate. She also stated that the agreement was not signed by her.

4. On the above pleadings, when the suit was fixed for arguments on 21-4-1993, the defendant Smt. Sabiri Devi filed an application under Order 18, Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that her statement be recorded on the basis of the above facts and that the previous statement before the Court was given under pressure of the plaintiff. This application of the defendants was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 8th May, 1993, which has been impugned in the present revision.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the case was fixed for arguments, the learned trial Court could not entertain an application for leading of additional evidence. Learned counsel further argued that on merits of the case the application could not be allowed because she had sufficient opportunity to prove her case in regard to the alleged fraud.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the compromise based on earlier statement of the applicant was a result of complete fraud played upon her by all concerned. It was not signed and no satisfaction of the Court was recorded in the previous decree, in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For this purpose, he made a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Banwari Lal V/s. Smt. Chando Devi through L.R.P., 1992 JT (Suppl) SC 420 : (AIR 1993 SC 1139). On the strength of this legal position, he contended that the original compromise is void in law. It being a result of fraud and contrary to the law laid down by this judgment, the applicant was entitled to lead additional evidence with regard to the fact constituting the fraud played upon her even by her counsel.

7. Coming to the merits of these contentions, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the additional evidence merits rejection at the very out set, in view of the recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Chandgi V/s. Mehar Singh, Civil Revision No. 2134 of 1997 decided on 12-3-1998 (reported in AIR 1998 Punj and Har 197) wherein it has been held that the application for additional evidence can be moved at any stage that is till the Court con