Dismissed

Veena Devi and Ors. v. Trilok Chand and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2010CR/5627/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition dismissed. The High Court held that a plaintiff bearing the onus to prove a sale deed forged cannot lead expert evidence to rebut the other party's evidence after a three-year delay, despite cited precedents allowing additional evidence in other contexts.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; application for additional evidence stands declined.

Veena Devi and Ors. Vs Trilok Chand and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.09.2010

¶5

Smt. Veena Devi and others

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Trilok Chand and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶11

Present: - Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

¶14

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff for leading additional evidence to compare the signatures, with the original sale deed, stands declined.

¶15

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction/possession, to challenge the sale deed executed in favour of Trilok Chand.

¶16

The onus of proving the sale deed to be forged and fabricated, was on the plaintiff. Instead of summoning the sale deed, from Trilok Chand, plaintiff got the signatures of the vendor compared from the certified copy of the sale deed, without moving an application for leading secondary evidence by issuing notice to the defendant/respondents to produce the original sale deed for the purpose of comparison of signatures by the handwriting expert.

¶17

-2-

¶18

Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2010

¶19

After the defendant/respondent proved the sale deed, the plaintiff moved an application to examine the second handwriting expert to prove the signatures on the sale deed, to rebut the evidence of the expert examined by the defendant/respondents.

¶20

The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground, that the application was moved after three years of filing of the original sale deed by the defendant/respondents.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Hans Raj Vs. Surinder Kaur and others, 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 377 , Ram Singh Vs. Pirthi and others, 1996 PLJ 605 and Anokh Singh and others Vs. Gurbax Singh and others, 2001(1) PLJ 586 to contend that the impugned order cannot be sustained as this Court in Hans Raj Vs. Surinder Kaur and others (supra) has laid down that merely because there is delay or some lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel in not producing the documents at the initial stage, is not sufficient reason for dis-allowing the application for additional evidence, even after the deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC.

¶22

In Ram Singh Vs. Pirthi and others (supra), this Court held, that no party could be denied the right to examine any witness on the ground that this evidence the party could have adduced at the time when the party was adducing affirmative evidence or when the party had right to adduce rebuttal evidence, the evidence essential to determine the real controversy in the suit cannot be denied.

¶23

In Anokh Singh and others Vs. Gurbax Singh and others (supra) this Court held, that additional evidence cannot be denied simply

¶24

-3-

¶25

Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2010

¶26

on the ground of delay, as the Court is not powerless to grant relief if the ends of justice and equity demand.

¶27

On consideration, I find that none of these judgments have any applicability to the present case. It is not in dispute that the onus of proving the sale deed to be forged and fabricated, was on the plaintiff.

¶28

The plaintiff/petitioners without seeking permission of the Court, got the certified copy proved. Though, in absence of an application for secondary evidence, certified copy could not be taken into consideration for proving the document.

¶29

In any case, once there is evidence on record, of an expert in favour of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the evidence now to be produced was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff, rather the plaintiff had already examined the handwriting expert.

¶30

In view of the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdev Singh and others Vs. Darshan Singh and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 794 , the party is not allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issue, the onus of which is on the party.

¶31

The plaintiff/petitioners in the garb of exercise of power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot overcome the specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶32

No merit.

¶33

Dismissed.

¶34

(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge

¶35

September 06, 2010 R.S.

Veena Devi and Ors. v. Trilok Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veena Devi and Ors. v. Trilok Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana Vs M/S Universal Construction Company

Nisha Devi Vs Ravinder Singh and Anr.

Satish Kumar Vs Suresh Kumar

Ashok Kumar Vs Harbans Singh and Anr.

Bina Gupta and Anr. Vs Manjira Datta and Ors.

Sohan Lal Bhatt Vs Union of India and Others