Revision dismissed against the trial court's order declining an application for additional evidence. The court held that the petitioner failed to challenge the initial decline at the proper time, making a subsequent application incompetent without merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No. 1674 of 2009
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 1674 of 2009 Date of decision: 05.09.2009
Dhanak Panchayat Mohalla Modi Mill, Sunam
....Petitioner
versus
Faquir Chand
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the respondent.
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This revision is directed against the order dated 15.1.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence, has been declined.
The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for redemption on the basis of agreement dated 7.1.2000. The case set up by the plaintiff/petitioner was, that notice of redemption was issued to the defendant/respondent, the details whereof were mentioned in para 8 of the plaint.
The averments made in para 8 of the plaint were denied by the defendant/respondent
The plaintiff led no evidence to prove service of notice. After the defendant led his evidence the petitioner availed opportunity of leading evidence in rebuttal. The petitioner tried to lead evidence qua service of notice in rebuttal, but his request was declined by the learned Court on 18.9.2008. The petitioner took no steps to challenge said
-2-
Civil Revision No. 1674 of 2009
impugned order, and allowed it to attain finality.
When case was fixed for arguments, application for leading additional evidence was moved to lead evidence, which had been specifically declined by the Court on 18.9.2008 i.e. to prove notice.
The learned trial Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to make out a case for leading additional evidence, as he neither pleaded, nor it could be said that the evidence sought to be led, by way of additional evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be found out with due diligence.
In spite of the evidence being in knowledge of the petitioner, the additional evidence could only be allowed, in case, the evidence sought to be led is necessary for pronouncing the judgment by the Court.
The petitioner is to fail, in this revision for the reason that once the relief for leading evidence was declined by the Court, and no steps were taken by the petitioner to challenge the order, he could not overcome, the order by resorting to additional evidence. The application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner was not competent. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge
September 05, 2009 R.S.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether additional evidence can be allowed when the party failed to challenge the prior order declining it at the appropriate time.
Whether there is any ground to interfere with the trial court's order dismissing the application for additional evidence.
If the petitioner failed to challenge the initial decline of evidence, whether a subsequent revision can succeed by rehearing the same application.
Dhanak Panchayat Mohalla Modi Mill, Sunam
Faquir Chand
Vinod K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
