:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1387 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1387 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1387 OF 2008 Balkrishna Baburao Mahajan ..Petitioner V/s Dhananjay Vasant Mahajan and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandivadekar for the petitioner Mr. Pratap Patil for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2008 : 13TH JUNE, 2008 : 13TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 30-1-2008 passed by Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Karad, whereby the application of the respondent to lead additional evidence came to be rejected. 2. It is an admitted fact that the suit before the Trial Court is now kept for judgment after the arguments of both the sides are complete. It appears that when the arguments were in progress the respondent/defendant has taken a clue from the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and has sought to make an application for leading additional evidence. The respondents have also filed a purshis in respect of closure of their evidence. :2: The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the matter is kept for judgment it was not open for the respondents to make this application. He further submitted that by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, proviso of order 18 rule 2 sub-rule (4), has been deleted. The said Sub-rule (4) of C.P.C.prior to its deletion provided thus :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage." 3. The learned Counsel has also invited my attention to order 18 Rule 17-A of CPC as it stood prior to its deletion, which provided thus:- "17-A Production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence - Where a party satisfies the Court that, after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the party was leading his evidence, the Court may permit the party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just" 4. Thus both the above rules, viz. 2(4) and 17A of Order 18, by the CPC (Amendment) Act of 1999 now stand deleted. The learned Counsel for the :3: petitioner submitted that from CPC (Amendment) Act 1999, it is clear that these provisions were deleted so as to avoid any application being made for seeking production of evidence and examining witnesses at the later stages of the suit and particularly when the trial has commenced. He submitted that the Legislature in its wisdom has omitted these provisions so as to avoid unnecessary delays so that the suits are decided expeditiously, and in the instant case, the matter once having been posted for judgment, it was not open for the respondent/defendant to make this application. 5. The learned Counsel has referred to the cases of Arjun Singh V. Mohindra Kumar and others, Arjun Singh V. Mohindra Kumar and others, Arjun Singh V. Mohindra Kumar and others, reported in AIR 1964 S.C. 993 and Wasudeorao Wasudeorao Wasudeorao Babasaheb Babasaheb Babasaheb Sonone & another V. Jagnnath Ramlalji Sonone & another V. Jagnnath Ramlalji Sonone & another V. Jagnnath Ramlalji Jugele Jugele Jugele, reported in 1985 Mh.L.J.565. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, the learned Counsel submitted that once the matter is closed for judgment the said application for additional evidence is not maintainable. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the :4: other hand has submitted that in the interest of justice the application was allowed by the Trial Court and this Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, in my view, the application ought to have been rejected and the respondent cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence in the matter particularly when the respondent has filed this application only after taking a clue from the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners before the Trial Court. It is obvious that the application is made at this belated stage when the matter is kept for judgment, merely to fill up such lacunae which were left out in the evidence in the Trial Court by the respondent. The learned Trial Court in the impugned order did not consider the cases cited, before arriving at its findings and has allowed the application of the respondent merely on the basis that the principles of natural justice have to be met. In my view, if such applications are allowed, in every matter, the other side would come forward taking clue of the arguments :5: of the Counsel and file applications to lead additional evidence so as to fill up any lacunae which may have been left out. This, in my view cannot be permitted. The Trial Court has thus erred in allowing the application and the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs. 9. It is clarified that this order would not come in the way of respondent in the event if any Appeal is filed and an application for additional evidence is made therein. Needless to mention that the same would be decided on its own merits. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)