Dismissed

Nirbhay Kaur and Anr. v. New Anaj Mandi and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Sept 2014CR/1727/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under S. 151 CPC to produce certified copies, holding that counsel's claim of documents lying in brief for a decade was unbelievable and reopening the case would cause prejudice. Cited distinguished.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order dated 16.02.2013 upheld.

Nirbhay Kaur and Anr. Vs New Anaj… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

234

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No.1727 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: September 08, 2014

¶4

Nirbhay Kaur and another

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

New Anaj Mandi Committee, Kharar and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.I.D.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.D.D.Bansal, Advocate for contesting-respondent No.1.

¶12

Service of proforma respondents No.2 to 8 was dispensed with vide order dated 10.07.2013

¶13

¶14

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶15

Petitioners Nirbhay Kaur and Randhir Singh have filed this revision petition against contesting-respondent New Anaj Mandi Committee, Kharar through its Authorized Member Vishnu Mittal and other proforma respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, vide which the application under Section 151 CPC for bringing on record the certified copies of the Court documents was dismissed.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued to contesting-respondent,

¶17

VINEET GULATIwho appeared through his counsel and contested the petition. 2014.09.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CR No.1727 of 2013

¶19

-2-

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶21

From the record, I find that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit against defendants for possession of 2 marlas of land encroached upon by defendant No.1, 3 marlas of land encroached upon by defendant No.2 etc. During the proceedings, an application was filed under Section 151 CPC by the present petitioners/LRs of defendant No.8 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22.01.1990 passed by Sub Judge, Kharar and in para No.2 of the main petition, it is stated that the applicants came to now about the impugned judgment and decree on 07.11.2000 and then they applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on 22.11.2000 and copies were finally received on 06.12.2000. The above-said copies remained lying in the brief of the counsel for the applicants throughout during the pendency of that petition and were noticed only when counsel was preparing for arguments. This application was contested.

¶22

The perusal of the record shows that the application for setting aside the judgment and decree was filed on 15.12.2000 and since the year 2001, these documents i.e. certified copies of the interim orders etc. remained lying in the brief of the counsel for the applicants as stated. As argued, the evidence in the present case has been closed in the year 2003 and since then, the case was pending for the arguments. The ground given by applicants that these copies remained pending in the brief for the last ten years and these have not

¶23

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CR No.1727 of 2013

¶25

-3-

¶26

been noticed till filing of the present application in the year 2013, cannot be accepted or believed. Otherwise also, if the evidence was closed in the year 2003, the case was fixed for consideration/arguments. Now, in 2013, the case has not come for the arguments for the first time. So, it cannot be held that counsel could not come to know regarding the documents lying in the brief for the last ten years.

¶27

From the record, I find that applicants were in knowledge of documents since from the beginning and they have also stated so regarding these documents in the pleadings. The evidence has been produced by the applicants and they closed the same but these documents were not produced on the record. These documents could have been produced at that time with due diligence. Now, by saying that it is the mistake of the advocate, this additional evidence cannot be allowed. As already held, the version that these documents remained lying in the brief of the advocate for the last 10 years, cannot be believed.

¶28

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar vide order dated 16.02.2013 held that this application has been moved just to fill up the lacuna. Further, I find that if this application is allowed, it will re-open the case and will cause prejudice to the respondents.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment passed by this Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Smt.Arvinder Kaur, 2001(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 463 . I have gone through this judgment and the same having distinguished facts will not apply in the present

¶30

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CR No.1727 of 2013

¶32

-4-

¶33

case as it is clearly held that the version regarding mistake of the advocate is not believable.

¶34

In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order dated 16.02.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar is correct and as per law and the same is upheld.

¶35

Therefore, finding no merit in the revision petition, the

¶36

same is dismissed.

¶37

September 08, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE

¶38

VINEET GULATI 2014.09.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Nirbhay Kaur and Anr. v. New Anaj Mandi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirbhay Kaur and Anr. v. New Anaj Mandi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Lal Vs Dogar Dass Sachdeva Trust

Renuka Vs Om Lata Kalyan and Ors.

Bhupinder Kaur Vs Piara Singh and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Satbir and Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh and Anr. Vs Sarabjit Kaur and Ors.

Sukhdarshan Singh Vs Jeon Singh & Ors.