Dismissed

Vijay Kumar v. Jas Rani and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Dec 2009CR/62/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the additional judge's order allowing the respondent in a property dispute petition to lead additional evidence regarding a site plan. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that admitting the evidence was within judicial discretion and did not contravene CPC Order 41 Rule 27.

What did the court decide?

The petition for civil revision was dismissed.

Vijay Kumar Vs Jas Rani and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R.No.62 of 2006(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 62 of 2006(O&M) Date of Decision: December 07, 2009

¶5

Vijay Kumar

¶6

...........Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt Jas Rani and others

¶9

..........Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina

¶11

Present: Mr.A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. None the respondents.

¶12

Sabina, J. (oral)

¶13

Plaintiff-Jas Rani filed the suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of the suit land. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8.10.2004. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal bearing No.152/2.11.2004. In appeal, plaintiff moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to lead additional evidence. Vide the impugned order dated 12.12.2005, the said application was allowed. Hence, the present revision petition.

¶14

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of

¶15

C.R.No.62 of 2006(O&M)

¶16

¶17

the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶18

The plaintiff by way of additional evidence wanted to produce on record the site plan by summoning clerk of Municipal Committee Mukerian. Vijay Kumar had got the site plan sanctioned on 11.4.2000. The learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the site plan got sanctioned by Vijay Kumar- defendant No.1 was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Since there was some dispute with regard to the identity of the property in dispute, the site plans got sanctioned by the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 were essential for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. As per Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application for permission to lead additional evidence can be allowed in case it enables the appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the application had been allowed in contravention of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No ground for interference is made out.

¶19

Dismissed.

¶20

( Sabina ) Judge

¶21

December 07, 2009

¶22

arya

Vijay Kumar v. Jas Rani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. Jas Rani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rati Ram Vs M.C. Cheeka

Ashok Kumar Vs Vishwamitter Andanr

(O&M) Kamla Vs Pawan Kumar

Pb Wakf Board Vs Indian Red Cross Scy. & Anr.

Lahori Ram Vs Kali Charan and Ors.

Kamlesh and Anr. Vs Ran Singh and Ors.