Dismissed

Raj Singh and Another v. Rup Ram

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jul 2013CR/4084/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, this court upheld the dismissal of an application for additional evidence in a specific performance suit. The court held that the request was belated and unnecessary as it would reopen the trial after the defendant's evidence, causing undue delay.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed and the impugned order of the trial court was maintained.

Raj Singh and Another Vs Rup Ram — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 4084 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 4084 of 2013 Date of decision July 11, 2013

¶5

Raj Singh and another

¶6

....... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rup Ram

¶9

........ Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. P. R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶14

The revision petition is against an order of dismissal passed in an application for leading additional evidence in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had examined himself and his witnesses to prove the agreement relied on by him for which he sought decree for specific enforcement. The defendant had denied the agreement and had also given his evidence. It was at this stage that the plaintiff filed an application to examine the handwriting expert to prove the thumb impression which was said to be imprinted on the agreement sued upon. Since the prayer was sought after the conclusion of the defendant's evidence the court dismissed the petition. I will find no error in the approach of the trial. The suit was of the year 2006 and the commencement of trial appears to have began in the year 2009. A prayer for additional evidence by examination of an additional witness for the plaintiff after the conclusion of the defendant's evidence is not merely belated, it

¶15

¶16

CR No. 4084 of 2013

¶17

would unnecessarily further delay the proceedings. The plaintiff ought to have been diligent in securing the attendance of all the witnesses before even the defendant commenced his side. He cannot have a luxury of producing additional evidence at this time. Counsel says that he will conclude his evidence at one hearing. It cannot merely be concluded in the manner which counsel fancies. The evidence is literally in the shape of additional evidence and after the evidence of the defendant the case would have to be re-opened on the side of the defendant to allow him the benefit of countering the evidence given by the plaintiff's witnesses. This is sure a process to prolong the course of trial. If the trial court has thought in such a situation that it was not worthwhile to extend the discretion to provide for this additional evidence, I will find no reason to cause an intervention to be made.

¶18

The impugned order is maintained and the revision petition is dismissed.

¶19

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶20

July 11, 2013 archana

Raj Singh and Another v. Rup Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Singh and Another v. Rup Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagmohan Bakshi Vs Virender Kumar

(O&M) Garrison Engg. West. Ferozepur Vs M/S Shastri Constructions Co.

Kishni and Anr. Vs Vivek Nirmohi and Ors.

Harbans Lal Joshi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Makhan Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Bhagwan Pal Singh Vs Ramesh Pal Singh and Anr.