The High Court dismissed the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged the trial court's order dismissing his application to lead additional evidence to prove the suit was within limitation. The High Court endorsed the trial court's reasoning. Modified
Null
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.
CR 3123/2012(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR 3123/2012(O&M)
Date of decision:04/09/2013
Daljit Singh Grewal
.............Petitioner
v.
Ram Singh
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Rajesh Punj,Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff
Mr.MJS Sethi,Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Vikas Singh,Advocate for the respondent/defendant.
Jaswant Singh,J.
Plaintiff/petitioner is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 15.5.2012 (P6) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge,Ludhiana whereby his application dated 3.5.2012(P4) for leading additional evidence has been dismissed.
In brief, the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit on 14.2.2002
(P2) for recovery of Rs.5 lacs as damages on account of defamation suffered due to filing of false complaints by respondent Ram Singh alleging the plaintiff-Daljit Singh Grewal to be a land grabber andJoshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.21 13:11 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
CR 3123/2012(O&M)
2
registration of an FIR dated 16.1.2001 under Sections 420,468 IPC etc. It was stated that defendant Ram Singh with the intention to defame the plaintiff, who was working as a District Commandant, Punjab Home Guards, got published a news item on 9.2.2001 in the Indian Express Ludhiana Newsline.
The issues were framed on 17.3.2003 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 11.3.2011. Thereafter the evidence of the defendant was closed and also the oral evidence of the plaintiff in rebuttal was closed on 20.4.2012. Since the defendant had asserted that the suit of the plaintiff was not within limitation, issue no.3 to that effect was also framed with onus on the defendant. The plaintiff on 3.5.2012 filed an application(P4) for permission to lead additional evidence by way of summoning the Editor/Correspondent of the aforesaid news paper dated 9.2.2001 to support his plea of his gaining knowledge and to show that the suit was within limitation. The application was contested by defendant by filing a reply (P5). The learned trial Court vide order dated 15.5.2012 dismissed the same by holding that the entire facts were throughout in the knowledge of the plaintiff and the evidence now proposed to be led was required to be led in affirmative. It was further held that the petitioner/plaintiff had failed to show that despite due diligence he could not lead the proposed evidence during his evidence in affirmative and the same, if permitted to be allowed at such a belated stage of the trial, would amount to
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.21 13:11 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
CR 3123/2012(O&M)
3
starting a de novo trial.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court fully endorses the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the learned trial court in the impugned order besides not permitting the plaintiff to fill up lacunae in his evidence and thus is of the view that counsel for the petitioner has not been able to raise any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Dismissed.
04.09.2013. joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.09.21 13:11 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order dismissing the application to lead additional evidence regarding limitation.
Whether the petitioner's counsel raised a valid ground warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227.
Daljit Singh Grewal
Ram Singh
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
