JUDGMENT
G.C. Garg, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 8.6.1995 of the trial Court whereby an application moved by the defendants for leading additional evidence was dismissed.
2. Plaintiff closed his evidence on 17.11.1994 and the defendants closed their evidence on 22.5.1995 after making statement. However, three days later, defendants moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to lead additional evidence. It was averred in the application that a scheme of consolidation has already been produced on record but the same could not be got exhibited due to inadvertence. The defendants also wanted to produce a copy of “sazra nasab.”
3. Trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that no explanation had come on the record for granting the permission to lead additional evidence. Trial Court consequently dismissed the application by its order dated 8.6.1995. Hence this revision at the instance of the defendants.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a copy of scheme of consolidation is already available on the record and the same is per se admissible in evidence, being a certified copy of a public document and the petitioner who could not get that document exhibited due to inadvertence ought to have been permitted to adduce additional evidence in that behalf. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner may also be permitted to produce certified copy of ‘sazra nasab’ (pedigree table) relating to the family of the parties. Learned counsel also submitted that certified copy of the ‘sazra Nasab’ is also per se admissible in evidence, being a copy of public record.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent on the other hand submitted that certified copies of the above documents are not per se admissible and no cause has been shown by the petitioner for granting him the permission to produce additional evidence.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case. I am of the opinion that permission to produce ‘sazra Nasab’ cannot be granted as the said document is not at all relevant for the proper disposal of the suit in view of the fact that the case of the parties is that plots were allotted to their respective fathers. As regards the additional evidence regarding production of certified copy of scheme of consolidation is concerned, I am of the opinion that the trial court ought to have allowed the petitioner to lead additional evidence in respect of that document as a copy thereof was already available on the record and the application for permission to lead additional evidence was moved within three days of closing the evidence. In that view of the matter and having regard to the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to produce the scheme of consolidation only if the same is per se admissible, in evidence and not otherwise.
7. Since the parties have already concluded their evidence and document allowed to be produced by way of additional evidence is available on the record, the suit is directed to be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt by the trial court a copy of this order. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial court on 18.2.1998 for further proceedings. No costs.
