IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2010 (M/S) Smt. Saroj Devi Jaiswal and another ..……… Petitioners Versus Addl. District Judge and another ……… Respondents Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Piyush Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. A suit for eviction and for possession was filed by the landlord/opposite party before the Judge Small Causes Court on the basis of a rent agreement. It transpires that the defendant did not dispute the rent agreement and, on that basis, the plaintiff led his evidence and did not prove the rent note. After the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant came to the witness box and denied the rent agreement. Consequently, after the closure of the defendant’s evidence, the plaintiff-landlord moved an application to lead further evidence to prove the rent agreement. This application was allowed by the impugned order on 25th October, 2010, against which, the defendant has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the closure of the evidence, no further evidence could be led by the parties in view of the provision of Order 18 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is bereft of merit. For facility, the provision of Order 18 Rule 2 is quoted hereunder:- 2. statement and production of evidence –(1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the suit or on any other day which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. (2) The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence (if any) and may then address the Court generally on the whole case. (3) The party beginning may then reply generally on the whole case. 2 [(3A) Any party may address oral arguments in a case, and shall , before he concludes the oral arguments, if any, submit if the court so permits concisely and under distinct headings written arguments in support of his case to the Court and such written arguments shall form part of the record. (3B) A copy of such written arguments shall be simultaneously furnished to the opposite party. (3C) No adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of filing the written arguments unless the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers it necessary to grant such adjournment. (3D) The Court shall fix such time-limits for the oral arguments by either of the parties in a case, as it thinks fit.] In Ajay Swaroop Mehrotra Vs. D.N. Raina (Deceased) and others, ADJ 10 (2008) 652, the provision relating to the leading of evidence by the parties was dealt and explained in detailed which is quoted hereunder:- “9. Before proceeding, it could be relevant to take a look into certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. provides for the production of documents of which the plaintiff's sues or relies upon. Sub clause (3) of Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. provides that a document not filed in the list could not be produced or received in evidence subsequently except with the leave of the Court and that the Court on sufficient cause can accept the document at a later stage if it finds relevant to the issue. This power has been given to the Court to ensure that substantial justice is done between the parties. Similarly, Order 16 Rule 1 of the C.P.C provides furnishing a list of witnesses who are likely to give evidence and such list is required to be filed within a stipulated period immediately after the settlement of the issues. Sub clause (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 also provides that the Court may for reasons to be recorded, summon a witness whose name was not found in the list on sufficient cause being shown. Order 16 Rule 1-A of the C.P.C provides that any party to the suit may bring any witness without applying any summon under Rule 1 to give evidence or to produce documents. Similarly, under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C., documents are filed and relied by the parties, the proof and admissibility of such documents so filed along with affidavit is subject to such orders of the Court. 10.These provisions which have been elaborated above, show that a mechanism or methodology has been provided to produce documents or to lead oral evidence and that the said 3 provisions does not shut out a party if a document or the name of the witness is not filed or led at the stage when it was required to do so. Documents can be filed at a later stage and witnesses can be called and even at a subsequent stage and, in both cases, the leave of the Court has to be taken which can only be granted on sufficient cause being shown. The idea behind this is, that substantial justice must be made between the parties and this is a laudable feature of our judicial system and which is reflected in the aforesaid provisions. In my opinion, the approach of the Court in such matters should not be to defeat the ends of justice nor cause undue delay in the litigation between the parties.” The Court held that the evidence can be led even after the closure of evidence if sufficient cause was shown and the whole purpose of allowing the parties to lead further evidence was that substantial justice must be made between the parties. In the present case, the plaintiff submitted that initially the defendant admitted the execution of the rent agreement but, thereafter, resiled from it and, consequently, this become a necessary ground to lead further evidence. In the initial stage, the plaintiff did not prove this document since it was admitted by the other parties. But when new evidence was led by the defendant, it becomes imperative for the plaintiff to move an application to lead further evidence in order to prove that the rent agreement was executed between the parties. In the opinion of the court, sufficient grounds are given out for leading further evidence. In the result, the court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. Since the petitioners are permitted to lead evidence, it would be open to the court below to permit the defendants to lead evidence in rebuttal. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 15th November, 2010 Shiv