IMPORTANT POINT
Additional Evidence--Once evidence of petitioners was ordered to be closed by order they were rightly not allowed to lead additional evidence to overcome said order.

Vinod K. Sharma. J. (Oral) :- The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 15.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ludhiana whereby the application moved by the petitioners to lead additional evidence was ordered to be dismissed.

2. The petitioners filed a suit for partition regarding land measuring 3K-14M on the allegation that the suit land was jointly owned by their predecessor Bhagwant Singh, the predecessor of defendants No.1 to 8, Prem Singh and defendant No.9 Charan Singh. They claimed that they have got 1/4th share in the land in dispute. The defendants No.1 to 8 were owners to the extent of 1/4th share and the remaining ½ share was owned by defendant No.9 Charan Singh.

3. Defendant No.4 supported the case of the plaintiffs.

4. However, defendants No.1 to 8 contested the suit on the allegations that the aforesaid persons and Sham Singh were partners in a firm known as Bhodey Electric Engineering Company, Ahluwalia Street, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. The property in dispute was acquired by the said firm. Lateran two more persons were inducted as partners in the said firm. Ultimately the said firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 18.5.1966. As per the said dissolution deed the property in question, which was the property of the partnership firm, was given to Prem Singh and Sohan Singh the retiring partners and since then Prem Singh and Sohan Singh remained in possession of the land in dispute as absolute owners thereof. It was also the case set up that Prem Singh expired on 30.10.1983, who is said to have executed a legal and valid Will dated 14.1.1990. bequeathing his moveable and immovable properties in favour of defendant No.1. Thus, defendant No.1 has become owner to the extent of 3/4th share in the land in dispute and that plaintiffs have been left with no right, title or interest in the land in dispute.

5. The issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were framed whereon both the parties led evidence and the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.9.1987 by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana. However, an appeal against the said judgment and decree was preferred and the case was remanded by the learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.3.2007 with a direction that one Balwant Kaur whose, name was recorded in the revenue record as co-owner, should be impleaded as party to the suit. It was also held by the learned appellate Court that the evidence already produced by the parties shall be read subject to all just exceptions and the parties would be entitled to lead further evidence on appearance of Smt. Balwant Kaur.

6. The application for impleading Smt. Balwant Kaur was allowed. However, she did not appear despite service and was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Since Smt. Balwant Kaur did not appear, therefore, the case was ordered to be heard and decided afresh.

7. The learned trial Court observed that at one stage the plaintiff tried to examine some witnesses in the case but objection was raised by defendants No.1 to 8 that no fresh evidence was to be recorded in this case as Smt. Balwant Kaur did not appear and matter was to be decided on the basis of the evidence already produced by the parties. The said objection was upheld by the learned trial Court vide order dated 12.1.2006 and the case was posted for rebuttal evidence and arguments.

8. Defendants No.1 to 8 thereafter filed an application for framing of issues in the connected Civil Suit titled Mohan Singh Vs. Charan Singh. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 22.7.2006. The application for additional evidence was also rejected vide same order.

9. Revision petition was filed by defendants No.1 to 8, which was allowed by this Court and directions were issued for passing a fresh order on the application for additional evidence.

10. In, the application for additional evidence the petitio