The court emphasized the importance of allowing essential additional evidence for just and proper adjudication of the case, highlighting that such evidence should not be declined on technicalities.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This revision petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 6.11.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurdaspur, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence has been ordered to be dismissed.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was legally wedded to late Shri Wazir Singh and being legal heir of the deceased was entitled to medical pension of her late husband. A prayer was made for mandatory injunction for transfer of pension of the petitioners husband in the name of the petitioner and interest @ 12% per annum was also claimed. Further injunction was prayed restraining defendant No. 4 not to release pension to any one else except the petitioner.

3. In the said suit, the petitioner moved an application to lead additional evidence to prove on record the petition moved by her under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as the order passed thereon. It was claimed that she being an illiterate lady was not aware of the said fact and immediately on coming to know about the same, the present application was moved.

4. The application was contested on the plea that the application had been moved to delay the proceedings. The averments made on merit were denied to be false. It was also claimed that the said evidence was not essential for the adjudication of the case.

5. The learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application by observing that the fact of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act having been filed was within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when she was leading the evidence and further by taking note of the fact that the suit was old, it was held by the trial Court that the application was filed at a belated stage.

6. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the order primarily on the ground that the evidence sought to be produced was a certified copy of the petition and the order passed by the Court thereon. It was further contended that the evidence sought to be produced was very material for just and proper adjudication of the case. In support of his contention that the order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chattar Singh v. Mehar Singh, 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 577 (P&H) wherein it has been held as under :-

"3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court feels that the order under challenge is perfectly justified and the trial Court has given sufficient reason for allowing the applications of the respondent to bring on record two documents by way additional evidence. The contention of Shri Bansal that the case was at the fag end and as such, these applications were required to be dismissed, is not tenable. The evidence which otherwise is material cannot be shut only due to some delay in moving the application on the part of the respondent. The language of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code does not define the stage at which such an application can be moved. It only says that where party after due diligence was not able to produce evidence the same can be produced at a later state subject to such terms and conditions as the Court may consider just and proper. This view is fully supported by the judgment of this Court in Hazara Singh and another v. Bachan Singh and others, 1988 PLJ 163 (P&H). The argument of Shri Bansal that the case does not fall within the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A is also misconceived. The trial Court has clearly opined that a complete copy of the jamabandi Ex. P-6 and the copy of the application which was moved by the petitioner for partition of the land are the documents which are necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the matter under challenge and the evidence sought to be produced goes to the