Dismissed

Sardul Singh v. Bagicha Ram

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2012CR/2850/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision under Article 227, the High Court re-evaluated the admissibility of an additional affidavit of examination-in-chief tendered by the plaintiff before cross-examination commenced. The Court held that since cross-examination had not started, the trial court rightly allowed the affidavit to cure omissions in the original. The revision petition was dismissed in limine.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed in limine.

Sardul Singh Vs Bagicha Ram — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CIVIL REVISION NO.2850 OF 2012 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 29th MAY 2012

Sardul Singh

…. Petitioner

Versus

Bagicha Ram

…. Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CM No.12248-CII of 2012

¶14

Allowed as prayed for.

¶15

CR No.2850 of 2012

¶16

Defendant Sardul singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition to assail order dated 02.04.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sardulgarh, thereby permitting additional affidavit of examination-in-chief of respondent-plaintiff Bagicha Ram.

¶17

Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit against defendant-petitioner for possession of suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell. The plaintiff while appearing as witness tendered his affidavit of examination-inchief and the case was adjourned for his cross-examination on the request of counsel for defendant-petitioner. However, before cross-examination could commence on subsequent date of hearing, plaintiff moved application for tendering additional affidavit as examination-in-chief because pleas taken by the plaintiff in paragraphs 3 and 11 of the replication were not mentioned in the

¶18

CR No.2850 of 2012 (O&M)

¶19

- 2 -

¶20

original affidavit of examination-in-chief. The said application has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order Annexure P-1, subject to payment of `5,00/- as costs. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that additional affidavit of examination-in-chief of the plaintiff could not be allowed before conclusion of his cross-examination. The contention cannot be accepted. After cross-examination, prayer for re-examination could be allowed and that too regarding ambiguity if any appearing in cross-examination, but further examination-in-chief could not be allowed after conclusion of crossexamination, except by way of additional evidence. However, before commencement of cross-examination, there was no bar to allow the additional affidavit of examination-in-chief because cross-examination had not commenced and, therefore, stage for examination –in-chief was not over. The plaintiff failed to mention certain facts (pleaded in the replication) in the original affidavit of examination-in-chief. The same has been rightly allowed by way of additional affidavit on payment of costs. The defendant-petitioner has not suffered any prejudice by the impugned order.

¶23

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is completely misconceived. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.

¶24

29^th May, 2012 ‘raj’

¶25

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶26

CR No.2850 of 2012 (O&M)

¶27

- 3 -

Sardul Singh v. Bagicha Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardul Singh v. Bagicha Ram

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

Harjit Kaur Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr.

Parveen Nayyar Vs Vikram Dhanda

Jaspal Kaur and Ors. Vs Amarjit Singh and Anr.

Ajit Kumar Jain Vs Suresh Jain

Neeru Gambhir Vs Gurdeep Kaur

Clarion Properties Ltd. Vs Legands Home Residential Welfare Association and Anrs