High Court dismissed revision petition seeking to set aside trial court order rejecting application to adduce additional evidence not disclosed in pleadings.
Revision petition dismissed; order staying trial court order setting aside.
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.
C.R. No. 5826 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. C.R. No. 5826 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 23rd ,2011
Kashmir Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
Suhawa Singh and others
.... Respondents
2. C.R. No. 5827 of 2011 (O&M)
Kashmir Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
Suhawa Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present Mr. S.K.Aneja, Advocate, for the petitioner (in both the petitions).
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
The above mentioned two revision petitions brought by Kashmir Singh, one of the defendants, under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are being disposed of by this common judgment as in both these cases, prayer is for setting aside the order dated 14.9.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalalabad, by way of which the application of the petitioner for permission to adduce additional evidence of the agreement of sale dated 22.12.2003 and sale deed dated 24.5.1996
C.R. No. 5826 of 2011
2
executed by respondent-plaintiff in favour of the petitioner, has been dismissed. For facility of reference, facts from Civil Rivision No. 5827 of 2011 are being taken.
The suit brought by Suhawa Singh, respondent No.1 is for declaration to the effect that he is owner of land measuring 11 kanals 10 marlas, 1/3rd share of total land measuring 34 kanals 11 marlas, property detailed in head note of the plaint, as also the other property detailed therein and that the sale deed dated 23.12.2004, allegedly executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, on the basis of so-called power of attorney dated 3.11.2004 is null and void.
After the evidence of the parties had been over, the defendant-petitioner filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence. He wanted to lead additional evidence of agreement of sale dated 22.12.2003 as also the sale deed dated 24.5.1996, claimed to have been executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2 The defendant has claimed in the application that he is a layman and illiterate person with rural background. He has also added that he is not aware of the spirit and intricacies of law. According to him, the plaintiff received certain amount from the defendant vide agreement of sale dated 22.12.2003 by way of receipt dated 25.6.2004 in a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs for the sale of his land. It is further averred that due to inadvertence on account of ignorance and illiteracy of the defendant, he could not prove the agreement of sale dated 22.12.2003 and sale deed dated 24.5.1996. Hence, he has prayed for permission to lead aforesaid additional evidence.
C.R. No. 5826 of 2011
3
The application is opposed by the plaintiff claiming the same to be not maintainable. It is averred that the documents in question have been procured by the defendants in connivance with each other with a view to grab the property of the plaintiff. It is averred that the aforesaid documents do not find mention in the written statement.
Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application vide the impugned order and fixed the case for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, defendant – Kashmir Singh has brought this revision petition.
I have heard Shri S.K.Aneja, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
The pleadings are necessary because they define the scope of controversy between the parties and set a stage for evidence. Only those pleadings which are not admitted by the other side and are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties, are required to be proved by evidence. The evidence cannot widen the scope of dispute, so circumscribed by the pleadings, between the parties. Therefore, no evidence can be allowed to be led on a plea, which does not find mention in the pleadings. The first and foremost ground for dismissing the application of the defendant would be that these documents do not relate to some facts referred to in the written statement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any good reason for allowing this application. If these documents are genuine, there is nothing in the application to say that they were not
C.R. No. 5826 of 2011 4
within the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner when he was leading his evidence. No foundation is laid for permission to lead additional evidence in the application. Therefore, learned trial court has been fully justified in rejecting the prayer for permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of these documents. The revision petitions are, consequently, found to be without merit and are dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected Civil Revision No. 5827 of 2011.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
September 23rd , 2011 som
2 issues framed by the court
Whether permission to adduce additional evidence of agreement and sale deed not mentioned in pleadings should be allowed.
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the application to lead additional evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KASHMIR SINGH
SUHAWA SINGH AND OTHERS
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
