In this revision petition under Article 227, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the plea challenging the trial court's rejection of an application for additional evidence. The court held there was no justification as the relevant documents were known before evidence was led. The petition was dismissed as meritless.
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. 1271 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 1271 of 2011
Date of Decision : January 10, 2012
Pirthi Pal Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
Smt. Gurdeep Kaur and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the respondents.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Plaintiff Pirthi Pal Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 01.02.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, thereby dismissing plaintiff's application (Annexure P-3) for additional evidence.
Plaintiff alleged in the application that defendant no.2 had filed a suit against the plaintiff on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 01.08.2001, whereby plaintiff allegedly agreed to sell half share of the suit
C. R. No. 1271 of 2011
2
house to defendant no.2. The plaintiff in that suit denied the said agreement. That suit was dismissed. Appeal in that suit was pending. The plaintiff could not obtain certified copy of the said agreement during pendency of the suit. The plaintiff, by way of additional evidence, wanted to summon relevant record of the said other suit and to prove certified copy of the alleged agreement dated 01.08.2001 and to examine handwriting and finger-print expert to prove signatures of defendant no.2 on documents Exs.P-2 and P-3. The said application has been dismissed by trial court vide impugned order dated 01.02.2011, which is under challenge in this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
There is no explanation why the certified copy of the alleged agreement was not produced by the plaintiff in the instant case at appropriate stage of his evidence. The said agreement was well within the knowledge of the present plaintiff while the plaintiff was leading his evidence in the instant case. Consequently, no justification for leading additional evidence regarding the said agreement is made out. Moreover, the plaintiff-petitioner has denied the alleged agreement dated 01.08.2001 and for this reason also, the said agreement is not relevant in the present case.
There is also no explanation why handwriting and finger-print
C. R. No. 1271 of 2011
3
expert was not examined at appropriate stage to prove signatures of defendant no.2 on documents Exs.P-2 and P-3. It was contended by counsel for the petitioner that defendant no.2, while appearing in the witness-box, denied his signatures on Exs.P-2 and P-3. However, this cannot be a ground to permit the plaintiff to lead additional evidence by examining handwriting expert to prove signatures of defendant no.2 on the said documents. The plaintiff, before framing of issues, should have put the said documents to defendant no.2 for admission/denial and in case of denial of signatures by defendant no.2 at that stage, the plaintiff should have proved the relevant documents, while plaintiff was leading his evidence.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that no justification for permitting the plaintiff to produce additional evidence is made out. Impugned order of the trial court is fully justified and does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
January 10, 2012
monika
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise power of superintendence under Article 227 to set aside the lower court's order dismissing an application for additional evidence?
Pirthi Pal Singh
Smt. Gurdeep Kaur
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
