1. The facts, in brief, are that during the pendency of the suit before the Subordinate Judge First class, Karnal, the plaintiffs-respondents filed an application praying for permission to produce a certified copy of a mortgage deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Karnal as the original mortgage deed is said to have been los. The application for additional evidence was moved after the argument had been addressed in the case and the case was fixed for pronouncement of orders. The trial court by means of a detailed order, dated March 31, 1980, allowed this prayer, subject to the payment of Rs. 250/- as costs, as the prayer for additional evidence had been made at a late stage. The defendants-petitioners have some up in Revision against the aforesaid order.
2. Mr. K. S. Kundu, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was no sufficient cause made out by the respondents so as to entitle them to the concession of additional evidence at such a late stage of the case. There is no gainsaying that the prayer for additional evidence was indeed made at a belated stage, but the law by now is well settled that not only additional evidence but even the amendment of pleadings may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings howsoever late, if it does not cause any prejudice to the opposite party and if the opposite party can be duly compensation by costs. In the present case the document required to be produced is a certified copy of a mortgage deed obtained from the Sub-Registrar, Karnal, and the authenticity of this document cannot be disputed.
3. As regards the aspect of secondary evidence, if the original mortgage deed was really available to the respondent, there is no reason why they should hesitate to produce the original instead of getting its certified copy from the sub-Registrar's office. Mr. Kundu, however, has tried to gain support from Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993, which ruling has no application to the facts of the present case. This matter has been thoroughly considered by the trial Court and I do not think anything more can be added to its observation in this behalf. It is obvious that the said Authority was dealing with order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, which is not the provision under consideration in the present case. The trial Court had very rightly placed reliance on Rajdhani Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Northern India Motion Pictures Association 1980-82 Punj LR 179, which is one of the several pronouncement in this behalf. In the present case, the trial court felt the need for the production of the mortgage deed in order to assist it to reach a justifiable conclusion in the matter under dispute i.e., the factum of the creation of the mortgage of the terms thereof. In he wake of the circumstance that the document was required by the Court for coming to a correct conclusion no objection to its production even at a late stage could be accepted.
4. The Revision Petition is without force and is consequently dismissed, but with no order as to costs. The parties, through their counsel have been directed to appear before the trial Court on October 15,1980.