The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the refusal of the trial court to permit additional evidence regarding a will that was not challenged in the plaint, citing settled law on supervisory jurisdiction.
Petition for revision dismissed; order of the trial court refusing additional evidence upheld.
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.
Civil Revision No.341 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.341 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19, 2011
Smt.Vidya Devi
.....Petitioner
v.
Smt.Sudesh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Jitender Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.Nos.1367-68-C of 2011
Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P3. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.
Civil Revision No.341 of 2011
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 7.1.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hansi, vide which application of petitioner-plaintiff for leading additional evidence was dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.
Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that suit for declaration and injunction, prohibitory and mandatory, was filed by petitioner-plaintiff against the defendants claiming to be owner and in possession of 1/4th share of land in dispute and claiming that revenue record of suit property is liable to be corrected as Mutation No.3316 dated 9.8.2007 sanctioned by A.C.II Grade, Hansi is against law and facts, null and void, nonest in the eyes of law and is mere paper transaction and is not
Civil Revision No.341 of 2011 (O&M)
-2-
binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside with further relief for restraining defendants from alienating the suit property and from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff and further for declaring sale deed No.2813 dated 5.9.2007 as illegal, null and void, nonest in the eyes of law and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff.
Written statement was filed by the defendants. Issues were framed. Parties were directed to adduce their evidence. Evidence of plaintiff was closed. Evidence of defendants was also closed and when the case was fixed for arguments, the present application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to adduce additional evidence to prove that Will dated 6.4.2007 is a forged and fabricated document. The said prayer was declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order, against which the present revision petition has been filed. Reasons given by learned trial Court while dismissing the prayer for leading additional evidence are as under:-
“ After hearing the submissions of both sides and having gone through the file carefully, this Court is of the considered view that the instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff for seeking injunction (prohibitory and mandatory) to the effect that the defendants be restrained from causing any interference in her ownership and possession of ¼ share in the total land measuring 3 kanals 7 marlas bearing Khasra no.146//12/1(3-7) comprised in khewat no.680/640 khatoni no.740 as per jamabandi for the years 2003-04. She has also assailed the validity of mutation no.3316 dated 9.8.2007 sanctioned by A.C. IInd grade, Hansi. Now through the application in hand, the plaintiff wants to lead evidence qua the Will which was executed by late Sh.Gopi Ram (deceased) who has expired on 12.6.2007; however this Court does not find any reason to grant such permission for the simple reason that defendants have taken specific stand qua the above mentioned will in their written statement at the initial stage, meaning thereby, prior to the evidence stage of the plaintiff. Secondly, the plaintiff has not even challenged the validity of the Will in her plaint or even in the amended plaint which was filed after seeking amendment. Therefore, even if the plaintiff leads the evidence
Civil Revision No.341 of 2011 (O&M)
-3-
qua the Will, that would be beyond pleadings. Furthermore allowing such an application at this stage, would surely cause injustice to the defendants who have closed their evidence.”
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that factum of Will came to knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff only from the written statement filed by the defendants and hence she could not challenge the same in the plaint. However, though plaintiff has not placed on record copy of plaint and however, perusal of impugned order shows that plaintiff has also challenged the sanctioned mutation no.3316 in favour of the defendants, which was sanctioned on the basis of the Will set up by the defendants. Hence, when mutation was in the knowledge of petitionerplaintiff, it cannot be said that Will, on the basis of which mutation was sanctioned was not in the knowledge of petitioner-plaintiff, when present suit was filed.
Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.
Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
19.1.2011 meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow additional evidence despite contrary pleadings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the trial court committed an error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and othersReferred¶30
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VIDYA DEVI
SUDRESH AND OTHERS
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
