Pritam Kaur vs Ashok
2014 Latest Caselaw 6353 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CM(M) No. 1059/2014 & CM No.19676/2014 (stay)

%                                                    1st December , 2014

PRITAM KAUR                                                ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gautam,
                                         Advocate.


                          VERSUS

ASHOK                                                    ...... Respondent
                          Through:



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the

petitioner/defendant no.1 impugns the order of the trial court dated

16.10.2014      which   has   rejected     the   application   filed   by     the

petitioner/defendant no.1 to lead additional evidence.


2.    The application for additional evidence was filed by the

petitioner/defendant no.1 at the stage of pronouncement of judgment and the

impugned order records that the case was fixed for petitioner's/defendant

CMM 1059/2014                                                                 Page 1 of 3
 no.1's evidence for the first time on 22.11.2012 and thereafter various

opportunities were granted to the defendants in the suit to lead evidence and

ultimately counsel for the petitioner/defendant no.1 made a statement on

28.5.2013 that no further evidence was to be led by the petitioner/defendant

no.1 and therefore the evidence of the petitioner/defendant no.1 was closed.

The case was thereafter fixed for final arguments and thereafter for

judgment/clarifications.


3.          I may note that besides the aspect that the trial court has rightly

exercised jurisdiction to dismiss the application for additional evidence at

the stage of pronouncement of judgment inasmuch as petitioner/defendant

no.1 took repeated opportunities and thereafter voluntarily closed her

evidence and therefore clock cannot be allowed to set back merely because

the petitioner/defendant no.1 in spite of being given various opportunities

did not lead evidence. In any case, the subject application was filed for

leading additional evidence was misconceived also because the case was

fixed for pronouncement of judgment when the application was filed. It is

only when a case is fixed for 'hearing' that a party can take steps because

some action has to be done by a party but if the case is only fixed for

pronouncement of judgment ordinarily no application can be entertained

CMM 1059/2014                                                               Page 2 of 3
 inasmuch as, under Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) it

is only when the case is fixed for hearing that the court would entertain any

application.

               Dismissed.



DECEMBER 01, 2014                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib