This is a civil revision challenging the dismissal of an application to summon rebuttal witnesses. The High Court held that no grounds for interference existed and dismissed the revision.
Civil Revision No. 6234 of 2011 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.
-1-
Civil Revision No. 6234 of 2011 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6234 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.10.2011
Kanwal Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Hari Dass alias Sethi and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present:Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner.
RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)
Challenge is to the order dated 29.09.2011 whereby the
application filed by the petitioner to summon the witness in rebuttal, has been dismissed (Annexure P-5).
Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration against the respondents is the exclusive owner of the land measuring 39 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Bhikhwind, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar (P-1). The plaintiff has set up three wills dated 19.09.1998, 14.10.1991 & 21.12.1999 executed by Lajpat Rai. The defendants have denied the execution and validity of the above said wills. On 29.12.2003, both Kanwal Kumar and Hari Dass executed one affidavit and admitted the execution and validity of the last will dated 21.12.1999 executed by Lajpat Rai in favour of Kanwal Kumar. This affidavit was attested at the identification of Surinder Kumar and Amrik Singh Lambardar of Bhikwind and Tirath Ram son of Rapal resident of Bhikiwind. This affidavit was produced before Ajit Singh Naib Tehsildar Bhikhiwind who
-2-
Civil Revision No. 6234 of 2011 (O&M)
was conducting proceedings on mutation no. 9419 . While rejecting the mutation, he has specifically mentioned about this affidavit. Order rejecting the mutation is Ex. PX. Plaintiff vide his application wants to summon Tirath Ram son of Raj Pal, resident of Bhikhiwind and Ajit Singh, Naib Tehsildar Bhikhiwind to prove the said affidavit dated 29.12.2003 executed by Kanwal Kumar and Hari Dass.
As far as rejection of mutation No. 9419 is concerned, the same
is not under challenge in the present petition. So, there is no need to prove the mutation No. 9419 on the record. The affidavit dated 29.12.2003 is already on the record (Ex P-10) which was tendered by the plaintiff in his replication. He had the opportunity to prove the same when gave his testimony as PW5. The alleged witness Surinder Kumar and Hari Dass were cross examined at length and they stated that the alleged affidavit dated 29.12.2003 does not lead their signatures and the signatures appearing on the affidavit are forged and fabricated one. Hari Dass-defendant who is the other son of Lajpat Rai was cross examined at length had categorically declined his signatures. The plaintiff wants to summon Tirath Ram who is his brother in law.
No ground to interfere in the order dated 29.09.2011 is made
out.
Accordingly, civil revision is dismissed
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the petitioner''s application to summon rebuttal witnesses in a property suit deserves interference in revision.
Whether the lower court erred in permitting the petitioner to summon specific witnesses to prove an affidavit which the opposite party had already tendered but refused to prove.
Kanwal Kumar
Hari Dass alias Sethi and others
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
