CR No.5437 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5437 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.8.2010 Darbara Singh and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Chand Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Phul District Bathinda whereby their application for leading additional evidence by way of placing on record Death Certificate of Pritam Kaur, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners, has been rejected. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Civil Court has wide powers to allow a party to lead additional evidence in a deserving case. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court an amendment made by this Court in the provisions of Order 18 Rule 2 CPC whereby Explanations I and II have been added by a local amendment as applicable in the State of Punjab. The aforesaid explanations read as follows:- “Explanation I - 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 CR No.5437 of 2010 (O&M) 2 witness at any stage. Explanation II - The expression witness in explanation-I shall include any party as his own witness (1.11.1966).” On the basis of the aforesaid rule, it has been argued that there are ample powers with the Court to permit adducing of the additional evidence either of its own accord or on an application by any of the parties. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that death of Pritam Kaur is not in dispute and the death certificate sought to be produced as additional evidence being a public document is per se admissible under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. He has also submitted that no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents in case the aforesaid document is allowed to be produced on record. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned order and the other averments made in this petition. By now, it is well settled that in a deserving case, the Civil Court has the powers to permit adducing of additional evidence. Deletion of Order 18 Rule 17(A) CPC, as per amendment in the Civil Procedure Code does not in any way curtail the powers of the Civil Court. Not only this, the local amendment made in this regard which is applicable to the State of Punjab, as reproduced above shows that there are ample powers with the Court to permit adducing of the additional evidence either of its own accord or on an application by any of the parties. Moreover, it is well settled that provisions of Civil Procedure Code Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice and the defence of a person cannot not be shut merely on the basis of technicalities. CR No.5437 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/- and the petitioners are allowed to lead additional evidence by way of placing on record Death Certificate of Pritam Kaur Let the petitioners be present in the Court on the date fixed i.e. 31.8.2010 and tender the costs as assessed by this Court to the respondents and on their doing so, the Court shall allow the petitioners to lead additional evidence as aforesaid. However, it is made clear that no further opportunity in this regard shall be granted. With these observations, the petition is allowed. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. August 27, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE