The court emphasized that additional evidence may only be permitted under exceptional circumstances, not as a routine, and evaluated the impact of delay on justice delivery.

Judgment

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

The present Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 10.01.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 18 Rule 17 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) for additional evidence was dismissed.

2. In brief the facts of the present case are that plaintiff Late Shiv Raj Singh filed a suit against his son Ajay Chaudhary and Daughter-in-law Rajesh for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that agreement to sell dated 21.07.2011 is illegal, wrong, null and void. The defendants while filing the written statement filed counter claim seeking relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.07.2011 with the consequential relief of permanent injunction. Thereafter respondents/plaintiffs led their evidence and after culmination of evidence of plaintiffs, the defendants led their evidence and during evidence petitioners/defendants filed an application for comparison of signature of plaintiff and production of sale deed etc which was allowed by Ld. Civil Judge vide order dated 04.09.2018, thereafter aggrieved by this order, plaintiff challenged this order in this court in Civil Revision no. 6881 of 2018, which was dismissed on 05.07.2022 with the observation that defendants to conclude their evidence within a period of three months from the date on which the sale deed is produced before the trial court. Sale deed was produced by respondents/plaintiffs before trial court on 09.09.2022, the evidence of defendants was closed by the defendants on 06.12.2022, thereafter application dated 05.01.2023 to call stamp vendor and Rang Lal who is attesting witness and also for producing death certificate of Kaptan Singh who was also a witness, as additional evidence was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and same was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order. Hence present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the additional evidence which defendants want to examine and place on record were inadvertently left out by the counsel for the defendants/counter-claimants and the evidence of defendants was closed by their counsel. He further contended that the trial court without assigning any reason has dismissed the application. It was further argued that trial court while passing the impugned order failed to take into consideration that the application for additional evidence stood on a totally different footing and then it was argued that the trial court negated the fact while deciding the application that defendants have set up counter claim in which the main reliance of the petitioners/defendants is on the agreement to sell dated 21.07.2011 and it is utmost important to examine the witness stated in the application. Reliance was placed on judgments of this court in Jaipal Vs. Hari Dass and Ors. 2017(2) ICC 483, Manmohan Singh Vs. Davinder Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur @ Gurminder Kaur and Ors. 2015(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 661, Robin James Vs. Gurdev Singh and Ors. 2019(1) Law Herald (P&H) 915. At last it was argued by the counsel representing petitioners that the petitioners have set up counter claim which is to be tried as a separate suit, so the impugned order should be set aside and application should be allowed.

4. Per contra the counsel representing respondents argued that the defendants/counter claimants availed as many as 8 effective opportunities including 3 last opportunities at the first instance but did not conclude their evidence and ultimately even a