Petitioner-defendant sought revision against order admitting respondent-plaintiff's additional evidence at fag end of trial. Single judge affirmed lower court order, noting no prejudice if evidence is scrutinized at final arguments, and dismissed petition.
Revision petition dismissed affirming the impugned order.
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.1995 of 2016
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1995 of 2016 Date of decision:17.03.2016
Harbans Singh
... Petitioner
Vs.
Gian Singh and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The petitioner-defendant is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure P-8), whereby, an application of the respondent-plaintiff seeking permission of the Court to place on record the certified copy of the mutation by way of additional evidence, has been allowed.
Mr. Deepak Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant submits that application has been moved at the fag end of the trial. The documents are incomplete. After passing of the impugned order, the respondent-plaintiff has tendered the documents which have been objected to and the matter is listed for defendant's evidence.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.03.28 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
{2}
Civil Revision No.1995 of 2016
and appraised the paper book and of the view that since the documents have been objected and defendant has been given liberty to lead additional evidence, no prejudice would be caused to him as it is to be seen at the time of final arguments, whether the documents placed on record can be looked into or not.
In view of the aforementioned observations, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered in the impugned order and same cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. The impugned order is affirmed.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
March 17, 2016 savita
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2016.03.28 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court revision petition challenging the admission of additional evidence under order X of CPC should be allowed.
Harbans Singh
Gian Singh
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
