JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order dated 4.8.1997 is impugned in this revision, primarily on the basis that the copy of the ration card, voter lists and the two bills of electricity in regard to the premises in question dated 4.8.1991 and 4.8.1992, the copies of which have already been placed on record, have not been permitted to be proved. The request for leading additional evidence under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the learned trial Court vide this impugned order.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that these documents, copies of which had already been placed on record, could not be proved because of a bona fide error on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is further submitted that these documents are necessary for the proper and complete adjudication of controversies involving the subject matter of the present suit. Thus, it is prayed that the petitioner should have been permitted to lead additional evidence.
3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that no revision is maintainable against an order declining the permission to lead additional evidence and, as such, the present revision petition is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the documents were in possession of the petitioner, he ought to have taken due diligence to prove the documents in accordance with law. It is averred that the suit is at final stages and the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings.
4. Having heard the counsel for the parties at some length, I would like to proceed on preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent with regard to maintainability of the present revision petition. For the reasons stated in detail in the case of Hazara Singh v. Bachan Singh, (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 765. I am of the considered view that this objection is void of any merit. Definite prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if he is not granted the permission to prove, these documents, the copies of which are already on record. The respondent herein is not being taken by surprise nor authenticity of these documents could be doubted, as the copies of the documents have already been placed on record. Consequently, the ends of justice demand that the petitioner should have been given opportunity to prove these documents to completely and finally adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
5. The learned trial Court has held that there was so sufficient reason disclosed in the application which could constitute a reasonable ground for allowing the application. No doubt, there is negligence on the part of counsel for the plaintiff but the rules of procedure should not be used to defeat the ends of justice and it may not be fair to let a party suffer because of an error on the part of counsel which itself may not be intentional. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit and one sees no reason why the plaintiff would delay the conclusion of the trial. May be the plaintiff has an order of injunction in his favour but that by it self may not be assumed to be a ground which could indicate lack of bona fide on the part of the plaintiff.
6. In view of the above discussion, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated 4.8.1997 is set aside. The petitioner herein is granted one and last opportunity to produce on record the ration card, voters list and the two bills aforestated and for the purpose of tendering and proving these documents in evidence. The plaintiff shall be permitted a further examination of the respondent and right of rebuttal if the onus of any of the issues comes on the respondent herein. As there is some negligence on the part of the petitioner, this petition can be allowed only subject to costs, conditional, which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. It is further made clear that no adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner except the date already fixed for recording the evidence on arguments. This revision is accordingly disposed of.