The court upheld that additional evidence cannot be introduced after the trial has commenced, aligning with procedural laws regarding evidence submission.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Chonstitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 05.06.2023, in terms whereof, an application filed by the present petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by learned Trial Court in the following terms:-

“5. In the present matter, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from obstructing a path. Further, from the perusal of zimni orders, it is observed that both the parties have led their evidence and the matter was listed for arguments and subsequently the present application was filed.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

6. According to the averments maHde in the application, it is observed that, the document sought to be produced is a spot map which is averred by thfe plaintiff that, it should have been annexed to the report of the naib tehsildar Sundernagar ie. EX. DW-2/A and that the defendant's evidence is incomplete. As per Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, alluows to produce the documents on record even at a later stage with the permission of the Court which the plaintiff is expected to produce the documents at the time of filing of the plaint. It nowhere states that the plaintiff may fill up the lacuna which the defendant has left while adducing evidence. Moreover, it is observed that the document sought to be produced and proved by the plaintiff had its existence i even prior to the filing of the suit, therefore, it is further observed, that the present prayer cannot be allowed, that too at such a belated stage, merely on the ground that the plaintiff is a lay man and is not fully conversant with the judicial procedure. The Hon'ble High Court of H.P in the case titled as Sarvan (since deceased) thr. LR's and ors vs H.P State Electricity Board and ors. Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 97 has stated that, "the parties, in the instant case, have already led their evidence. The allowance of prayer of plaintiffs will necessary mean allowing him to lead additional evidence, which is impermissible in law after omission of Rule 17-A of Order 18 of CPC, from the statute book through amendment, which came into effect inH the year 2002."

7. Accordingly, in view of the above precedent and discussion, the application stafnds dismissed. The present application stands disposed of which after needful be tagged with the main case file .”

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is per se bad for the reason that the learned Trial Court while disomissing the application has erred in not appreciating that the document exhibited by the defendants was an incomplete document and as the endeavour of the petitioners was only to phroduce the complete document, no prejudice would have been caused to the other party had the said application been allowed.

3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no perversity in the impugned order. He submitted that if there is any deficiency in the evidence of the defendants, then the defendants will obviously suffer but the same cannot be made a ground by the petitioners or in other words, the petitioners cannot be allowed to take benefit thereof and fill up the lacunae which exist in their evidence.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that as per the petitioners herein Ext. DW2/A is not a complete document, consequences thereof, obviously will ensue because during the course of hearing of the case, the petitioners will get an opportunity to demonstrate before the learned Court below that the said document is an incomplete document. Besides, this Court is of the considered view that once this d