The revision petition challenging an order declining the petitioner's application to adduce additional evidence in a civil suit was dismissed. The trial court found no legal infirmity as sufficient opportunities were available earlier.
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. 4104 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 4104 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : February 04, 2013
Mahender Lal
....Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Kumar and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present : Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the respondents.
Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral)
Present revision is directed against the order passed by the court below, whereby application to lead additional evidence has been declined.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one opportunity be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to examine a hand-writing expert to prove the documents in question.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the plea. He submits that defendants examined their hand-writing expert in normal course while leading evidence. Plaintiff was granted number of opportunities at the right time but he failed to examine any expert and when now the suit is at the fag end, present application has been moved for leading additional evidence. According to him, trial court has rightly dismissed the application.
C.R.No. 4104 of 2012 2
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order on 28.11.2009. Even defendants closed their evidence on 5.3.2011. Case was thereafter adjourned for rebuttal evidence and arguments on 18.7.2012. At that stage, plaintiff moved an application praying that he be granted one opportunity to lead evidence. Same has been rejected by the court below observing that plaintiff had sufficient opportunities to lead evidence and decree dated 5.6.1989 was very much in his knowledge. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order. No interference in the revisional jurisdiction is required. Revision petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
February 04, 2013 BB
( Rajan Gupta) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed a legal infirmity in declining the plaintiff-petitioner's application to lead additional evidence by examining a handwriting expert at the fag end of the trial.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the dismissal of the additional evidence application given the plaintiff had sufficient opportunities earlier.
Mahender Lal
Rajesh Kumar and others
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
