Revision petition by defendants challenging an order allowing plaintiffs to lead additional evidence to compare signatures. The High Court held that substantial justice was done as experts were cross-examined and dismissed the petition.
The revision petition was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.3017 of 2009 Date of Order: 23.10.2009
Ramesh Kumar and others.
....Petitioners
Versus
Bal Krishan and Others.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. M.S.Rakkar Senior Advocate with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
SABINA, J.(Oral)
Plaintiffs filed suit for possession by way of ejectment of shop in question. After the parties had led their evidence in support of their case, plaintiffs moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence. Vide impugned order dated 08.05.2009, trial Court has allowed the application for permission to lead additional evidence. Hence, the present revision petition by the defendants No.1 to 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that additional evidence could not be allowed to be led at this stage as the parties had concluded their evidence. Moreover at this stage, the genuineness of the document, now sought to be proved on record, was also not established.
Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, on the other hand, has submitted that in terms of the impugned order, plaintiffs have led additional evidence and have examined a hand writing expert. The hand writing expert
C.R. No.3017 of 2009
..2..
examined by the plaintiffs has duly been cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
Plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the shop in question. Although the parties had led their evidence but thereafter, the plaintiffs came across the application admission form submitted in the school dated 15.05.1969 which was signed by Hukam Chand. The plaintiffs by way of additional evidence wanted to get the signatures of Hukam Chand on application form dated 15.05.1969 by summoning the same from the office of Government Elementary School, Silaba with the disputed signatures of Hukam Chand on rent note dated 25.10.1964. The learned trial Court in the impugned order has observed that the said document was not in the possession of the plaintiffs and as such they could not be produce the same on record while leading their evidence in the affirmative. It has further been observed in the impugned order that the additional evidence now sought to be led by the parties, was necessary for proper adjudication of the lis between the parties.
In these circumstances, no interference by this Court is called for. Moreover now the plaintiffs in compliance of the impugned order have examined hand writing expert who has submitted his report after comparing the signatures of Hukam Chand on the form dated 15.05.1969 with the rent note. The hand writing expert examined by the plaintiff has been duly cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants. Substantial justice has been done. Trial Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
October 23, 2009. Seema-II
(SABINA) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing additional evidence for comparison of signatures after the conclusion of evidence.
Ramesh Kumar and others
Bal Krishan and Others
SABINA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
