Dismissed

Satish Kumar v. Pushpa Sharma and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Oct 2011CR/6176/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under Art. 227, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's refusal to allow additional evidence for calling the drafter of a sale deed. The revision court upheld the trial court's finding that the dismissal was correct as the petitioner had earlier admitted the deed's existence but failed to prove it.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition praying for setting aside the order refusing additional evidence is dismissed in limine.

Satish Kumar Vs Pushpa Sharma and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR NO.6176 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR NO.6176 of 2011 Date of decision:12.10.2011

Satish Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

Smt.Pushpa Sharma and others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

-.-

¶13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

¶14

The present revision petition has been moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.9.2011, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, whereby the application under Section 151 of CPC filed by the applicant/defendant for leading additional evidence, was dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that the suit property was purchased by the petitioner through a registered saledeed. The conveyance deed dated 15.4.2005 was executed by the Executive Engineer of PWD B&R, Sirsa in favour of the petitioner in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sirsa, which was got drafted by Shri Basti Ram, the then Executive Engineer. He further submits that at the time of his examination, this witness could not be examined as he was not posted at Sirsa at that time. As his examination is necessary, therefore, the learned counsel seeks an opportunity to examine this witness.

¶16

CR NO.6176 of 2011

¶17

¶18

Perusal of case file reveals that the suit has been filed for declaration to the effect that the said conveyance-deed executed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1 is illegal as the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (i.e. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2), petitioner and proforma respondents No. 4 to 8 are also entitled to get the said land in their favour jointly in equal shares being in possession in equal shares from defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The learned trial Court observed that the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have duly admitted the existence of said conveyance deed and have only challenged its legality, not its execution. The learned Trial Court further observed that as it is established that the conveyance deed in question stands executed in favour of the petitioner. there is no necessity to prove the deed in question. Moreover, the learned trial Court also observed that defendant No.3Executive Engineer has already been impleaded as a party. Therefore, it is very much in the knowledge of the petitioner that his case fully depends on the said conveyance deed. However, he did not take due diligence by not proving the said document according to the Indian Evidence Act.

¶19

In the circumstance, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly held that application for leading additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna especially when the petitionerdefendant No.1 was fully conversant with the facts. There is no material illegality or irregularity in exercising of jurisdiction by the trial Court. It is not permissible for this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the Code, to interfere with the order refusing additional evidence; that too at a very belated stage, especially when both the parties have concluded their evidence and the case is fixed for arguments

¶20

In view of the above, I find no merit in the instant petition and

¶21

CR NO.6176 of 2011

¶22

¶23

the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶24

12.10.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Mks JUDGE

Satish Kumar v. Pushpa Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. Pushpa Sharma and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Nagpal Vs Editor Navbharat Times and Others

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pawan Kumar etc. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Chander Bhan & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

M/S Ajit Singh Om Parkash Vs State of Punjab

Vishali Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.