Dismissed

Jagdish Kumar v. Manjit Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2010CR/7095/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition challenging an order allowing additional evidence under Section 151 CPC. The Court held that documents from public records obtained after evidence closure do not amount to manufacturing evidence and supported the trial court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed without any order as to costs.

Jagdish Kumar Vs Manjit Kaur — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CR No.7095 of 2009

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

******** CR No.7095 of 2009 DECIDED ON: 26.04.2010 ********

Jagdish Kumar

. . . .Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Manjit Kaur

. . . .Respondent

********

**CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ******

¶12

Present: - Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Ms.Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶16

This revision petition is directed against order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Karnal whereby, an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) by the plaintiff for permission to produce and prove documents by way of additional evidence has been allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-.

¶17

At the time of notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the judgment relied upon by the learned trial Court in the case of “Surinder Kapoor Vs. Gurdev Singh” 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 595 was not applicable as that was a case where the evidence was closed by order of the Court. It is further submitted that on 21.5.2009, by way of statement of counsel for the plaintiff, oral evidence was closed and on 10.6.2009 after tendering

¶18

CR No.7095 of 2009

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

documentary evidence, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. On 10.6.2009, the evidence of the defendant was closed. It is submitted that there is no occasion for the learned trial Court to allow the plaintiff to produce on record documents by way of additional evidence, which are the judgment of the Civil Court and also the electricity bill and ration card.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has cited decision of this Court in the case of “Prem Lata Versus Ram Sarup” 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 423 to contend that necessary documents per se admissible in evidence must be allowed to be produced in evidence, may be subject to costs as per the procedure of law is handmaid of justice and it must be used to advance the cause of justice and to avoid causing injustice. She also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of “Basant Raj Versus Kaushal

¶22

Kishore” 2005(3) PLR 76 to contend that once good and sufficient reasons are recorded by the Court permitting the additional evidence, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere unless great prejudice is shown to have caused to the other party. In respect of the decision in the case of Surinder Kapoor (Supra) it is submitted that of course the order was passed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC for closing of the evidence but learned Court below had also dismissed the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17A of the CPC, therefore, the revision petition was allowed subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as Costs.

¶23

After hearing both learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that impugned order does not warrant any interference by

¶24

CR No.7095 of 2009

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

this Court as the same has been passed in accordance of law because after the closure of the evidence by both the parties, documents placed on record would not be coming from the custody of the applicant/respondent but one of the document is the judgment and decree of the Court and two documents are the documents from the public record, namely, electricity bill and ration card, therefore, these documents cannot be deemed to have been manufactured by the respondent after closure of their evidence. I am in full agreement in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Prem Lata (Supra) that the procedure of law is handmaid of justice and not its mistress and is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to obstruct it.

¶27

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the present revision petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

¶28

26.04.2010 Vivek

¶29

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

Jagdish Kumar v. Manjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Kumar v. Manjit Kaur

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

Kanwaljit Singh Vs Sukhwant Kaur and Ors.

Babli Devi and Ors. Vs Sanjeev Kumar Andors.

Suman Chopra Vs General Public

Kashmiri Lal Vs Sdo(Civil)-Cum-Collector, Amloh etc.

Bala Vs Rajinder Singh and Ors.

Manohar Lal Vs Vidya Wati and Ors.