Dismissed

Harinder Kaur v. Nirmal Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Sept 2013CR/1155/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order allowing a plaintiff to lead additional evidence to prove an agreement in a specific performance suit, but imposed costs to remedy the lower court's failure to do so.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay ₹10,000 as costs precedent to defendants for leading additional evidence.

Harinder Kaur Vs Nirmal Kaur and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1155 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1155 of 2013 Date of decision : September 13, 2013

Harinder Kaur

....Petitioner

versus

Nirmal Kaur and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

None for respondent no. 1

¶13

Mr. SK Guleria, Advocate for proforma respondents no. 2 to 7

¶14

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶15

Harinder Kaur, who is respondent no. 4 before the lower appellate court and was defendant no. 4 in the trial court, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 31.1.2013 Annexure P/4 passed by the lower appellate court thereby partly allowing application Annexure P/2 filed by respondent no. 1- plaintiff Nirmal Kaur (appellant before the lower appellate court) for

¶16

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.16 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶17

Civil Revision No. 1155 of 2013

¶18

-2-

¶19

additional evidence.

¶20

Suit filed by respondent no. 1-plaintiff against petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 to 7 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 9.8.2002 was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 11.8.2009 Ex. P/1 inter alia on the ground that the impugned agreement Ex. P/1 was not proved and documents Exs. P8 to P13, regarding willingness of certain persons to advance loan to Kamal Kant Singh for purchase of suit property, were also not proved and therefore, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of the agreement was not proved.

¶21

Plaintiff in her application Annexure P/2 alleged that the aforesaid documents had been duly exhibited and therefore, counsel for the plaintiff in the trial court was under bonafide impression that the documents stood duly proved and therefore, did not lead evidence to prove the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought permission to lead additional evidence to prove the said documents.

¶22

Defendants by filing reply Annexure P/3 contested the application and controverted the averments made therein and inter alia pleaded that there is no ground for permitting the plaintiff to lead additional evidence at the stage of first appeal and the plaintiff could not be permitted to fill up lacuna in her case.

¶23

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.16 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶24

Civil Revision No. 1155 of 2013

¶25

-3-

¶26

Learned lower appellate court vide impugned order Annexure P/4 has partly allowed application Annexure P/2 filed by the plaintiffappellant and has permitted her to lead proposed additional evidence to prove impugned agreement Ex. P/1 but has declined permission to lead additional evidence relating to documents Exs. P8 to P13. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 4 has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

¶27

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 to 7 whereas none has appeared for contesting respondent no. 1/plaintiff/appellant inspite of service and adjournments.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that there was no ground for permitting additional evidence at the stage of first appeal.

¶29

I have carefully considered the matter. Lower appellate court has specifically recorded finding that the proposed additional evidence regarding agreement is essential for just decision of the suit and the appellate court requires the said additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment in the appeal in satisfactory manner. On these grounds, additional evidence can certainly be permitted at the stage of first appeal in view of provisions of order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, the impugned agreement has been exhibited as Ex. P1 (said to be photostat copy). Consequently, the plaintiff may not have led

¶30

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.16 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶31

Civil Revision No. 1155 of 2013

¶32

-4-

¶33

appropriate evidence to prove the said document in accordance with law. The said document is the basis of the suit of the plaintiff. Consequently, proposed additional evidence relating to the said agreement has been rightly permitted by the lower appellate court. However, plaintiff should have been burdened with heavy costs for the same. Impugned order of the lower appellate court suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error to the extent of not imposing cost on the plaintiff for permitting her to lead the aforesaid additional evidence. In other respects, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is dismissed except to the extent that respondent no. 1/plaintiff shall pay ` 10,000/- as costs precedent to the defendants for leading additional evidence relating to the agreement as permitted by the lower appellate court.

¶35

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.16 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

Harinder Kaur v. Nirmal Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinder Kaur v. Nirmal Kaur 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

Amandeep Singh Vs Om Parkash Megh Raj, Commission Agent and Ors.

Gumeet Kaur and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Harpal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Tara Singh Vs Dalbir Kaur & Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs M/S Birla Global Finance Limited and Anr.

Sandeep Ahuja Vs Ravinder Kaur