Dismissed

M/S Amar Singh Sohan Singh v. Santokh Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2009CR/1831/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal of an application for additional evidence. The Court held that the evidence was substantially delayed and improperly sought merely to cause delay in proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition challenging the refusal to admit additional evidence was dismissed.

M/S Amar Singh Sohan Singh Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CR No. 1831 of 2009 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶3

AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1831 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.4.2009

¶5

M/s Amar Singh Sohan Singh

.. Petitioner

Santokh Singh

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶13

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.3.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence to prove affidavit dated 30.4.2005 on record, has been dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the affidavit, which is sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, has bearing on the case as vide that affidavit sworn by Kulwant Singh, the entire case set up by the respondent- plaintiff will be demolished. He further submitted that for the delay, the respondent-plaintiff can be compensated with costs.

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Earlier the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Court on 21.11.2007. The same was challenged before this Court and on payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs, this Court granted one opportunity to the petitioner to complete his entire evidence vide order dated 27.3.2008. In spite of that, affidavit dated 30.4.2005, which is now sought to be produced in additional evidence, was not produced. The petitioner closed his evidence on 30.4.2008. Thereafter, application for additional evidence was filed nearly one year after the closure of his evidence when the case was fixed for arguments. It seems that the same has been filed just to delay the proceedings. There is no justification for permitting the petitioner to produce affidavit dated 30.4.2005 in additional

¶16

CR No. 1831 of 2009 [2]

¶17

evidence, when ample opportunity was available to the petitioner to produce the same in the evidence led by him.

¶18

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶19

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶20

1.4.2009 mk

M/S Amar Singh Sohan Singh v. Santokh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Amar Singh Sohan Singh v. Santokh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narinder Singh Vs Narinder Kumar & Ors.

Ranjit Singh and Ors. Vs Verkha Kaur and Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs Haryana Roadways and Ors.

Babu Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rattan Singh Vs Om Parkash and Ors.

Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs M/S Gupta Roller Flour Mills