Allowed

Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Sher Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2013CR/2938/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the trial court's refusal and allowed petitioners to exhibit the original agreement of sale dated 26.07.2002 despite procedural lapse, as the document was material and witnesses attested its execution.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioners permitted to place and exhibit the original agreement of sale dated 26.07.2002 and respondents allowed to cross-examine witnesses regarding execution.

Jatinder Singh and Ors. Vs Sher… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2938 of 2012 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 2938 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2013

¶4

Jatinder Singh and others

¶5

……Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sher Singh and others

¶8

…….Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶12

¶13

A.N. Jindal, J.

¶14

The trial Court refused to allow the petitioners to exhibit the original agreement of sale dated 26.07.2002, which they had proved by way of their affidavits tendered by Sadhu Singh (PW-1), Jasbir Singh (PW-2) and left to exhibit the agreement at the time of tendering their for crossexamination. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Sadhu Singh (PW-1) and Jasbir Singh (PW-2) had categorically deposed in their affidavits that they had seen the original agreement and had signed the same as attesting witnesses.

¶15

To the contrary, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred as 'the respondents') has urged that none of the witnesses had seen the original agreement and the said agreement could only be proved

¶16

Civil Revision No. 2938 of 2012 (O&M) 2

¶17

at the time of examination of the witnesses and not later, as such, the said document cannot be exhibited at this stage.

¶18

Heard. The relevant part of the statements of Sadhu Singh, Lumberdar (PW-1) as well as Jasbir Singh son of Baldev Singh (PW-2), both attesting witnesses to the agreement dated 26.07.2002, is reproduced as

¶19

under:-

¶20

Statement of Sadhu Singh

¶21

“6. That I have signed the same as a witness and have seen the said agreement, which is true and correct.”

¶22

Statement of Jasbir Singh

¶23

“6. That Sher Singh, through his mukhtiar-e-aam, agreed to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the purchasers within two months from the date of becoming owner of the said land.

¶24

That both the parties have signed the said agreement in my presence knowing it to be true and correct.

¶25

That I have signed the same and has seen the said agreement, which is true and correct.”

¶26

All this goes to show that though the said witnesses have proved the original agreement at the time of their examination-in-chief, yet the same could not be exhibited due to inadvertence, obviously for the reason that the same would be exhibited in the presence of the Court before tendering them for cross-examination. The said document being very material in nature and very basis of the suit could not be disallowed to exhibit merely for the technical defect that the same, though has been proved, yet could not be exhibited. The Courts at the grassroots should be cautious enough to watch the interest of the parties, lest a party should not suffer for such a small defect or fault which could not anticipate at the appropriate time.

¶27

Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioners may be allowed to exhibit the agreement of sale dated 26.07.2002 by producing original of the same in the Court, however,

¶28

Civil Revision No. 2938 of 2012 (O&M) 3

¶29

witnesses may be permitted to be cross-examined qua the execution of the document.

¶30

In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to place and exhibit on record the original agreement of sale dated 26.07.2002 and the respondents would be at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses to the limited extent of the execution of the said document.

¶31

(A.N.Jindal) 05.02.2013 Judge ajp

Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Sher Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Sher Singh 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

Suraj Kaur Vs Ram Kishan

P.P.Caprihan Vice-Chancellor Mdu Vs Sri Bhagwan Dahiya

(O&M) Surinder Kumar Vs Sri Bhagwan

Jatinder Singh and Ors. Vs Sher Singh and Ors.

Sushila and Ors. Vs Jai Parkash

Darshan Singh and Ors. Vs Iqbal Singh