Civil Revision regarding refusal to admit additional evidence of a registered sale deed. The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the trial Court's view that the delay and negligence of the petitioners-prejudiced the case.
Civil Revision No.2480 of 2011 is 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
Civil Revision No.2480 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20th September, 2011
Ram Narain and others
… Petitioners
Versus
Pryag Bansal and another
… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.1.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
In the present case, admittedly the suit was filed in the year 2004 and issues were drawn by the trial Court on 16th December, 2004. After the plaintiffs concluded their evidence, defendants led their evidence and the same was also closed. When the case was at the stage of arguments, an application (Annexure P-1) was filed on 29th January, 2011 stating that the sale deed dated 28th October, 1969 and mutation thereof bearing No.177 are required to be brought on record by way of additional evidence.
It is stated that existence of the sale deed dated 28th October, 1969 came into the notice of the petitioners-plaintiffs only on 24th December, 2010. The trial Court held that copy of the sale deed dated 28th October, 1969 is a registered document, therefore, the same cannot escape the notice of the plaintiffs. The Court further held that the
2
Civil Revision No.2480 of 2011 (O&M)
petitioners-plaintiffs-applicants were negligent in not proving the said sale deed dated 28th October, 1969 and the subsequent mutation bearing No.771 in their evidence.
The trial Court rightly came to a conclusion that no case is made out to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs because of the delay on their part. Hence, no interference is warranted in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE
September 20, 2011 rps
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in not interfering with the trial Court's refusal to allow additional evidence of a registered sale deed due to petitioner's negligence and delay.
Ram Narain and others
Pryag Bansal
another
Kanwajit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
