ORDER
Sat Pal, J.
1. This petition has been directed against the order dated 20th May, 1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Ludhiana. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff (respondents herein) under Order 18, Rule 17-A, CPC read with Section 151 CPC for examining additional evidence.
2. The admitted facts of the case are that the evidence of the plaintiffs respondents was closed on 12th May, 1993. Thereafter, the evidence of the petitioner/defendant was closed on 12.12.1994. On 16th January, 1995, when the case was fixed for arguments, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint and for producing fresh site plan. The said application was, however, rejected by the learned trial Court. The aforesaid order of the learned trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff in this Court in C. R. No. 961 of 1995 which was allowed vide judgment dated 8th May, 1995. While allowing the said revision petition, this Court directed that the plaintiff would be given only one opportunity to lead his evidence and one opportunity will also be given to the defendant to lead his evidence, if any. It was further directed that the trial Court will dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within four months. It appears that in pursuance of the judgment dated 8th May, 1995, passed by this Court, the plaintiff/respondents availed of one opportunity to examine their witnesses. On 22nd August, 1995, the defendant (petitioner herein) tendered some documents in the Court and requested for an adjournment but his request for adjournment was declined by the learned trial Court on the ground that the High Court vide judgment dated 8th May, 1995 had directed that the suit itself should be disposed of within four months. Thereafter, about 9 opportunities were given to the plaintiffs to examine their evidence in rebuttal but they failed to examine any evidence in rebuttal. On 15th March, 1996, the plaintiffs however, filed an application under Order 18, Rule 17-A which has given rise to the present petition.
3. Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in terms of the judgment dated 8th May, 1995, passed by this Court in C.R. No. 961 of 1995, the learned trial Court could give only one opportunity to the plaintiffs to examine their entire evidence but since that one opportunity was given to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had availed themselves of that opportunity, learned trial Court could not have given any further opportunity to the plaintiffs to examine any other witness. The learned counsel further submitted that even the plaintiffs had given no reason for having filed the application for additional evidence at such a belated stage. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Chhotu v. Barjinder Kumar, (1994-2) 107 P.L.R. 282.
4. Miss Suman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that keeping in view the interest of justice, the learned trial Court passed the order granting one more opportunity for examining additional evidence as the additional evidence sought to be produced is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. As stated herein before, this Court vide judgment dated 8th May, 1995, had directed the learned trial Court to grant only one opportunity to the plaintiffs for examining their evidence and thereafter one opportunity was to be given to the defendant to examine their witnesses. Admittedly, the plaintiffs had availed themselves of this one opportunity and had examined their witnesses. Thereafter, the case had to be adjourned on 8 occasions at the request of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs for rebuttal evidence. The order granting one more opportunity is patently contrary to the judgment dated 8th May, 1995, passed by this Court and since this Court while allowing the civil revision petition filed by the plaintiffs earlier had made it clear that the plaintiff would be given only one opportunity, the learned trial Court erred in allowing the application for additional evidence which was filed as late as in March, 1996. Even otherwise, from the records, I find that no cogent and specific reasons were given by the plaintiffs as to why they could not even prove the sale deeds earlier particularly when the copies of those sale deeds were already on record when the plaintiffs had closed their evidence as back as in May, 1993. Keeping in view the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Smt. Chhotu (supra) I am of the view that the plaintiffs were not entitled to examine any other additional evidence.
6. For the reasons recorded herein above this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2nd May, 1996, passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.