1991 (7) TMI 386 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to orders of the Munsif rejecting applications to recall witnesses for further examination.
- Interpretation of Section 23 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of statements made in a compromise petition not acted upon.
- Application of Order XVIII, Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling witnesses to lead fresh evidence.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the Munsif's orders rejecting applications to recall witnesses for further examination based on some admissions made in a compromise petition filed but not acted upon. The Court cited Section 23 of the Evidence Act, stating that such applications could not be allowed.

2. The suit involved a claim of easement rights over a pathway, with a joint compromise petition filed by both parties but not acted upon due to a missing sketch map. The plaintiffs sought to recall witnesses to exhibit the compromise petition, which was rejected by the trial court.

3. The petitioners filed petitions to recall witnesses under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of the Code, which the trial court rejected, alleging the purpose was to delay proceedings. The Court highlighted the distinction between recalling witnesses for fresh evidence under Rule 17A and mere examination under Rule 17.

4. The defendants opposed the recall petitions, arguing that no new evidence was intended, and the purpose was delay. The Court emphasized the need for due diligence in presenting evidence under Rule 17A, allowing evidence not previously known or producible.

5. The Court noted that the applications to recall witnesses were made under the wrong provision of the Code, questioning the trial court's rejection. The judgment discussed the relevance of admissions in the compromise petition not signed by both parties and not acted upon.

6. Referring to Section 23 of the Evidence Act, the Court analyzed the admissibility of statements in the compromise petition, citing precedents from Allahabad and Oudh High Courts regarding negotiations for settlement and the value of admissions in such contexts.

7. The Court concluded that the statements in the compromise petition, even if valid admissions, were not intended as evidence due to the petition's failure. Therefore, the trial court's orders rejecting the recall petitions were deemed justified under Section 23 of the Act.

8. Consequently, the Civil Revisions were dismissed, with no costs awarded. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to legal provisions and the significance of valid evidence in court proceedings.