Timeliness is crucial in civil proceedings; allowing additional evidence at a late stage is impermissible if the evidence was known earlier.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside order dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, whereby the application dated NIL (Annexure P-3) filed by respondent No. 1/defendant for leading additional evidence in Civil Suit No. 936 of 2014, titled as ‘Santokh Singh vs. Tarsem & others’, was allowed

2. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that notice in the present case was issued by a co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 17.09.2018 and learned trial Court was directed ‘to adjourn the case beyond the date given by this Court’. Respondents No. 1, 3 and 10 had first put in appearance on 30.01.2020. On said date, upon the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner service of the remaining respondents was dispensed with at that stage, as they had been proceeded ex-parte before the Courts below. Further, perusal of order-sheets reveals that after 30.01.2020, the case has been listed for hearing several times, none has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 and 10. As such, the present matter is being heard and decided in their absence.

3. It is, inter alia, submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the application for additional evidence (Annexure P-3) has been filed by the defendant No. 1-Tarsem Singh/respondent No. 1only with a view to delay the trial. The application has been filed when trial was at fag end and matter was fixed for rebuttal and final arguments. Thus, the application could not have been allowed at this belated stage. Moreover, the respondents are the beneficiaries of the Tabdil Malkiatnamas, therefore, the same were in their possession since the year 2011. In fact, it has been admitted by the defendants themselves that the additional evidence now sought to be produced by them was in their knowledge prior thereto. Even the additional evidence sought to be produced has no relation to the issues in hand. It is accordingly, prayed that the present Civil Revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

4. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail.

6. Brief facts are that the petitioner had filed Civil Suit No. 936 of 2014 dated 18.06.2014/23.09.2014 (online) (Annexure P-1) seeking declaration that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 are owners in possession and joint possession of the suit land measuring 55 Kanals 18 marlas as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 08.09.2015:-

“1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

2) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and they have suppressed the real facts from this court? OPD

3) Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD

4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

5) Relief.”

7. Defendant No. 1/ respondent No. 1 herein, had led his evidence and closed the same in affirmative. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. It is at this stage that defendant No. 1 filed the present application dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) for leading additional evidence to examine concerned Clerk of Tehsildar Office Hoshiarpur along with record of both registered Tabdil Malkiatnama dated 03.8.2001 and 20.1.2011; and to examine its marginal witnesses Gu