IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7795 of 2010 Date of decision: January 27, 2011 Raj Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Goyal and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. I.S. Pabla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure P3) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra, declining to grant the permission to lead additional evidence. The defendant wanted to examine Naresh Goyal a family member. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2000 and claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of 32 kanals 16 marlas of the suit land. The defendants have strengthened their claim on the basis of the said judgment and decree and they wanted to establish that the judgment and decree was quite valid and is passed on the basis of earlier family settlement. The trial court declined the additional evidence on the ground that the defendants wanted to delay the proceedings. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendants have availed numerous opportunities and did not examine Naresh Goyal, but at the same time, the plea set up by the defendants-petitioner is that he being member of the family and son of late Smt. Sarbati Devi and real brother of the defendant was a witness who could depose about the transactions going on between the family and he could disclose if any family settlement had taken place earlier, on the basis of which judgment and decree dated 30.12.2000 was passed. Civil Revision No. 7795 of 2010 -2- *** Learned counsel has explained as to why he was not examined. It has been submitted that he was ill and under treatment of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He is still ill and under the treatment of Dr. V.K. Vohra and Dr. Surender Chadha, but now he is bit recovered and is in a position to depose. He had further undertaken that he would not examine any other witness. As regards the allowing of additional evidence, this court has ample powers to provide an opportunity to lead additional evidence if it finds that the same is essential for just decision of the case. This Court had taken note of the related provisions in case Basant Raj vs. Kaushal Kishore, 2005(2) HRR 546 and observed as under:- “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 Civil Revision No. 7795 of 2010 -3- *** accord or on an application of any of the parties subject to the condition that good reasons are required to be 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 my mind that 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. Naresh Goyal being member of the family could disclose about the true facts within his special knowledge. As such, I consider that his statement is essential for just decision of the case. However, the delay caused on the part of the defendant could be compensated with costs. Accordingly, I allow the application, set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner to examine Naresh Goyal by way of additional evidence subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. However, the plaintiff- respondent would be at liberty to lead evidence in rebuttal. The trial court would conclude the evidence of the petitioner- defendant within two months positively from the date fixed in the case. January 27, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge