The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a trial court order that rejected a plaintiff's application to lead additional or rebuttal evidence in a suit for recovery based on cheque deposits made in the USA.
The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
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. 1951 of 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 1951 of 2018 Date of decision: 23.03.2018
Hardev Singh ....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ranjit Kaur and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar by the plaintiff-petitioner. Vide the impugned order, the application moved to lead evidence in rebuttal or by way of additional evidence has been dismissed and the case has been fixed for rebuttal as a last opportunity, if any, and for addressing arguments.
The reasoning given by the Trial Court is that the evidence was within the knowledge of the plaintiff and was not produced when he was leading the evidence in affirmative and the plaintiff could not be allowed to lead evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the defendants on the issues the burden of proof of which was on the plaintiff. Similarly, on the issue of additional evidence, reliance had been placed upon judgment in Satnam Singh vs. Davinder Kaur, 2007 (2) CCC 81 that additional evidence cannot be led where the parties have closed the evidence.
A perusal of the impugned order would go on to show that the
Shivani Gupta 2018.03.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R. No. 1951 of 2018
2
suit for recovery was filed against the defendants on the account that amount had been paid to defendant no. 1 by way of cheques which were encashed by her by depositing the same in her account in USA. The onus of proof as such would, thus, necessarily be on the petitioner that the payment was made and had been duly encashed by the defendants. It is for the plaintiff to prove these facts by summoning appropriate witnesses from the bank and to lead sufficient evidence to show that the same has been done. Once the evidence has been closed and the case is at an advanced stage for rebuttal, the Trial Court is well justified in holding that the rebuttal could only be allowed qua those issues the onus of which would be upon the defendants. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was well justified in dismissing the application.
Merely because the attorney of defendant no. 1 had appeared and had filed evasive reply regarding the payment would not be sufficient ground as such to lead additional evidence on the ground that the onus is necessarily on the plaintiff. Reliance upon the judgment in Jaipal vs. Hari Dass and others, 2017 (1) Law Herald 539 that the additional evidence should be allowed to be led is also not acceptable as a perusal of the application for additional evidence would go on to show that it is the case itself that the copies of the cheques duly attested by the notary were already on record. In the application, it was further averred that the plaintiff wants to prove the said documents in rebuttal evidence. Additional evidence is only to be allowed where it could not be led earlier due to unavoidable circumstances being not available or could not be produced at the time when parties were to lead evidence. It is not to be allowed in routine as such at any stage where the parties wish to bring on record the evidence Shivani Gupta 2018.03.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R. No. 1951 of 2018
3
specially once the plaintiff was fully aware of the defendants' plea which they had taken and the evidence which they had to lead the onus of which was on the plaintiff itself.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition,
the same is dismissed.
23.03.2018 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
Shivani Gupta 2018.03.27 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil court can dismiss an application by a plaintiff to lead additional or rebuttal evidence after the evidence has closed.
Whether the trial court could rightly hold that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof for payment and encashment of cheques.
Whether additional evidence should be allowed when the document was already available on record but not produced earlier.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satnam Singh vs. Davinder KaurReferred¶12
Satnam Singh vs. Davinder Kaur, 2007 (2) CCC 81
Jaipal vs. Hari Dass and othersDistinguished¶18
Jaipal vs. Hari Dass and others, 2017 (1) Law Herald 539
Hardev Singh
Ranjit Kaur and others
G.S. SANDHAWALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
