In this Civil Revision, the High Court at Chandigarh dismissed the petitioners challenge to the trial courts order refusing permission to lead additional evidence. The court held that the trial court correctly rejected the claim of forged signatures as the petitioner had previously admitted moving the application.
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.
Civil Revision No. 4735 of 2015
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 4735 of 2015 Date of Decision: 04.8.2015.
Raj Kumar
........Petitioner
Versus
Ranjeet Singh (deceased) through LRs
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 07.07.2015 (Annexure P-7), whereby, application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that signatures of the petitioner on application for restoration of partition proceedings were forged.
Petitioner has filed suit for declaration and has claimed the relief of joint possession. When the case was listed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioner, if any and arguments, petitioner moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence. By way of additional evidence, petitioner wants to establish that the application for restoration of partition proceedings was not signed by him and the signatures on the said application had been forged. The application for restoration of partition proceedings was later
GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.06 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
Civil Revision No. 4735 of 2015
dismissed in default on 16.01.2007. The learned trial Court while dismissing the application has held that the petitioner himself had admitted the fact that the application was moved by him for restoration of partition proceedings. Moreover, it has been noticed by the trial Court that as per the order of Assistant Collector, Grade-I on application for restoration dated 18.02.2007, the same had been presented by applicant Raj Kumar himself along with his counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence.
No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
August 04, 2015 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2015.08.06 14:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order dismissing the petitioners application for permission to lead additional evidence regarding forged signatures.
Whether the petitioner submitted additional evidence proving that the application for restoration of partition proceedings were forged.
Raj Kumar
Ranjeet Singh (deceased)
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
