Civil Revision No.2176 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.2176 of 2009 Decided on : April 29, 2009 Phuman Singh and another ... Petitioners VERSUS Hazara Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.K.Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Heard. The plaintiff – petitioners had applied for leading additional evidence by invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for tendering Jamabandis for the year 1978-79 and 1983-84, the documents, which are part of the revenue record, however, the Trial Court by stating that order XVIII Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been deleted by way of subsequent amendment, rejected the application. This Court took note of the related provisions in case Basant Raj vs. Kaushal Kishore, 2005(2) HRR 546 and observed as under:- Civil Revision No.2176 of 2009 [ 2 ] “4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their rival submissions, I am of the view that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order exercising jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court itself has felt the necessity of adducing of additional evidence because it would be helpful in bringing on record a clear picture. Once, such an opinion has been expressed by the court, then the power to permit additional evidence can be traced to Rule 18 Order 2 Explanation 1 as has been added by the local amendment applicable to Punjab and Haryana. The aforementioned Explanation 1 is reproduced hereunder for facility reference:- “Explanation 1 – Nothing in this rule shall affect the jurisdiction of the Court, of its own accord or on the application of any party for reasons to be recorded in writing, to direct any party to examine any witness at any stage. Explanation II – the expression witness in Explanation 1 shall include any party as his own witness (1.11.1966)” 5. It is thus, obvious that there is ample power with the court to permit adducing of the additional evidence either on its own accord or on an application of any of the parties subject to the condition that good reasons are required to be Civil Revision No.2176 of 2009 [ 3 ] recorded. A perusal of the impugned order shows that valid reasons have been recorded for passing the impugned order for adducing of additional evidence, including that it would be found to be helpful in bringing on record the clear picture and the same is necessary for expeditious disposal of the case. Even otherwise, the defendant – petitioner is unlikely to suffer any prejudice which is the basic condition for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Ouseph Mathai vs. M.Abdul Khadri 2002(1) SCC 379 has taken the view that this Court is to exercise jurisdiction in case of manifest injustice. No such manifest in justice is shown.” Thus, no iota of doubt remains in the mind of this Court that application for additional evidence could be allowed by invoking the provisions of Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if it was really essential for just decision of the case. The copies of the revenue record, sought to be produced by the plaintiff certainly, are necessary for just decision of the case. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner will tender the aforesaid documents in evidence on the next date of hearing, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to imparting complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as Civil Revision No.2176 of 2009 [ 4 ] also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move this court for recalling this order. April 29, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE