Dismissed

Rachhpal Singh v. Surjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2013CR/2554/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the court denied the plaintiff's request to produce additional evidence regarding his presence at a Registrar's office. The court held that readiness and willingness are statutorily mandated on the plaintiff, who must prove it before closing evidence.

What did the court decide?

The application for additional evidence was held unacceptable and rightly rejected by the Court below; the revision petition is dismissed.

Rachhpal Singh Vs Surjit Singh — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

C.R. No.2554 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.2554 of 2013 Date of Decision.16.07.2013

¶5

Rachhpal Singh s/o Sh. Dalip Singh

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Surjit Singh s/o Mansha Singh

¶9

.......Respondent

¶10

Present: Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Harvinder Pal Singh Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶16

-.-

¶17

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

¶18

The application for production of additional evidence was sought by the plaintiff to prove his alleged presence at the Registrar's office on a particular day in proof of his readiness and willingness to obtain the sale deed. The contest by the respondent was on two grounds that on an earlier occasion when his side was closed and when he had come on revision to this court, he merely contended that he had only a jamabandi to be exhibited as the evidence and he should be provided with one more opportunity to produce the same. The Court accorded to him the permission and directed the case to be reopened for the benefit of the plaintiff to tender evidence with reference to jamabandi. After the order was passed by this Court previously, it appears that the plaintiff closed his evidence and the defendant also

¶19

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.19 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

C.R. No.2554 of 2013

¶21

-2-

¶22

produced his evidence and examined in particular DW1 who was a Clerk at the Registrar's office to give evidence to the effect that plaintiff was not present but the defendants were present. He was also crossexamined with reference to the same. After production of this witness, the plaintiff has filed this application for giving additional evidence that he was also present at that time.

¶23

The readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract is a statutory mandate under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff. Before the closure of his evidence, he ought to have brought every evidence that was necessary to prove the readiness and willingness. If the defenant had adduced evidence that the plaintiff was not so ready and willing and that he had also brought a witness to vouch for the contention that the plaintiff was not present at the Registrar's office but the defendants' witness was present, the plaintiff cannot reopen the case and be allowed the benefit of additional evidence.

¶24

The application for additional evidence which he was seeking for was unacceptable and rightly rejected by the Court below. I find no error in the order for interference. The revision petition is dismissed.

¶25

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶26

July 16, 2013 Pankaj*

¶27

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.07.19 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Rachhpal Singh v. Surjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachhpal Singh v. Surjit Singh

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

Excise & Taxation Ministries Vs State of Haryana (Decided Case)

Maktul Singh Vs State of Haryana

K C Goyal Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority

(O&M) National Insurance Co. Vs Urmila etc.

Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs General Public

Nirmal Singh and Ors. Vs Prakash Rani and Anr.