Application for production of additional evidence including thumb impression comparison was dismissed as futile since the defendant was trying to undertake a burden that did not exist.
Revision petition disposed of; additional evidence application rejected.
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.222 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.222 of 2013 Date of Decision.17.01.2013
Uger Sain son of Sahi Ram
.....Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Kumar son of Pirthi Singh and others
.......Respondents
Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
C.R. No.222 of 2013
-2-
other person than the 2nd defendant herself. It is this type of oral evidence that was adduced through a proof affidavit that compels the petitioner to move an application for production of additional evidence and for bringing comparison of the thumb impressions. This petition has been dismissed and therefore, the revision petition before this Court. 2. In my view, the whole exercise is futile and the defendant is trying to undertake a burden, which does not exist. I have seen through the averment in the plaint and particularly the fraud and misrepresentation said to have been practised on the 2nd defendant for making the release on 02.01.2003. This is brought out in para 2 and sub clauses (i) to (v) are the alleged instances of fraud. In none of instances produced, there is even a remotest suggestion that there had been a practice of impersonation. On the other hand, the thumb impression found in the document is literally admitted. At one place the attack to the document is that the 2nd defendant-Banarsi Devi did not have power to execute the release deed, in yet another place the document is said to have been executed without knowing the contents. In either way a plea of impersonation is not brought out in the plaint. Even the thumb impressions in the documents are not impeached as not that of 2nd defendant in the plaint. If such evidence had been given in oral evidence of any of the plaintiff's witnesses, the petitioner will better know that it is bound to be eschewed and he will have all the resources to persuade the Court for such a position. The fact that the party has adduced evidence inconsistent with what the case would permit and will not necessarily give luxury to defendant to indulge in production of documents and obtain reports of experts which are unnecessary in this
C.R. No.222 of 2013 -3-
case.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 17, 2013 Pankaj*
Uger Sain son of Sahi Ram
Rajinder Kumar son of Pirthi Singh and others
K. KANNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
