Dismissed

Surjit Kaur v. Sukhwinder Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2012CR/1428/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Civil Revision No. 1428 of 2012, this court dismissed the revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for leading additional evidence filed under Section 151 CPC. The court held that since the respondent had previously denied signatures during cross-examination, the request to prove signatures was not justified.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed without granting permission to lead additional evidence.

Surjit Kaur Vs Sukhwinder Kaur — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1428 of 2012

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1428 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 5.3.2012

Smt. Surjit Kaur

..... Petitioner

Sukhwinder Kaur

..... Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶14

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence, was dismissed.

¶15

Proceedings arise out of a suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for recovery of ` 74,400/-. The entire evidence of the parties was led when the application in question was filed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the document in question was put to the respondent-defendant in her crossexamination, she denied her signatures on the same, which necessitated the filing of the present application for leading additional evidence by the petitioner.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made.

¶18

It has been noticed by the learned court below in the impugned order that the respondent-defendant from the very beginning had denied her signatures on the document produced by the petitioner-plaintiff in evidence as Ex. P-1. It is not for the first time that in her cross-examination, she had denied her signatures on the document. Permitting the petitioner at this

¶19

Civil Revision No. 1428 of 2012

¶20

(2)

¶21

stage to prove the signatures of the respondent-defendant on the document in question means to permit her to fill in the lacuna. The suit was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff way back in the year 2004. The entire evidence has already been led. The petitioner cannot be permitted to delay the suit any further.

¶22

The petition is dismissed.

¶23

5.3.2012 vs.

¶24

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

Surjit Kaur v. Sukhwinder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Kaur v. Sukhwinder Kaur

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

Ram Kumar and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Punjab Wakf Board Chd. Vs Sita Ram & Ors.

Bhagwan Singh Sandhu Vs Lal Singh and Ors.

Jagsir Singh Vs Beebo @ Kiranjeet Kaur & Others

Birmati Vs Naseeb Singh

Mohinder Singh Vs M/S Rameshwar Dass Mahabir Parsad