JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur Jhirka (Mewat), vide which the application filed by the petitioner for producing additional evidence has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit with the following prayer: -

3. The evidence of the petitioner was closed and the defendants had also led their evidence. At the stage of rebuttal evidence, an application dated 19.12.2017 (Annexure P-2) was filed for producing additional evidence. In the said application it was averred that a criminal case bearing No.230/2013 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC was registered at Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur by one Sajida, who in the application was stated to be daughter of Sakina (defendant No.l/respondent No.l) and it was averred that the statements of the brothers of Sakina, namely, Jamati and Subrati, and other witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation of the criminal case and defendant No.l-Sakina at the time of cross examination had admitted about the registration of the criminal case but had denied the statements of her brothers in the criminal case. It has further been averred that Subrati, brother of Sakina, has also been examined in the criminal case as DW-3 but the statement recorded in the criminal case could not be put to the said DW-3. On the basis of said averments, it was prayed that the petitioner/plaintiff be permitted to produce certified copy of statements of Sakina, Sajida, Jamati, Subrati and Ilyas, which were recorded during the course of investigation in the said criminal case, as additional evidence by summoning the concerned clerk of the Court of JMIC, Kaman, with the case file. Reply to the said application was filed, in which, apart from the other objections, it was stated that the said statements which had been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigation officer had no legal value and was not substantive evidence and could only be used for the purpose of contradiction in the said criminal case. It was further averred that the alleged statements had no effect on the rights of the answering defendants and they were not bound by the same. In addition to above, it was stated that the application for additional evidence was not maintainable and the evidence sought to be produced was beyond pleadings and moreover, several opportunities were granted to the applicant/plaintiff to lead his evidence and he had already led his evidence in the case and had closed his evidence by making a statement before the Court. It was averred that the applicant/plaintiff had not exercised due diligence at the time of leading the evidence and the application was filed just to delay the proceedings.

4. The Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ferozepur Jhirka (Mewat), vide order dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure P-4), dismissed the said application dated 19.12.2017 (Annexure P-2) and had observed that it was well settled law that the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC during the course of investigation were not substantive piece of evidence and Section 162 CrPC provides that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC could only be used for the purpose of contradiction in the criminal case and could not be used for the purpose of corroboration. Furthermore, it was observed that the statements under Section 161 CrPC could be used by the prosecution or the defence for the purpose of contradiction only in a criminal case and thus, the statements of the said witnesses in the criminal case were of no relevance in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner wishes to produce on record the said statements under Section 161 CrPC so as to show the evidence given by DW-3 and Sakina (defendant No.l) was contradictory to the statement