Dismissed

Mohit and Ors. v. Rishpal Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2019CR/4297/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge Bench dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of an application to add sale deeds as additional evidence at final arguments. The court held the defendants were aware of the documents and failed to place them earlier, and allowing the late evidence would cause unnecessary delay.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order upholding the rejection of additional evidence.

Mohit and Ors. Vs Rishpal Singh and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

C.R. No.4297 of 2017 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.4297 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.01.02.2019

Mohit and others

...Petitioners

Rishpal Singh and others ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

-.-

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the application for bringing on record the sale deeds by way of additional evidence at the stage of final arguments, has been declined.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent-plaintiff had filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction by laying challenge to the Will executed by Shiv Kumar whereas the defendants denied the averments as Shiv Kumar after selling the agricultural land purchased the agricultural land in the name of his sons. The documents are per se admissible and can be tendered into evidence subject to mode of proof, as it will help the Court in adjudication of the lis.

¶16

Mr. Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that factum of the sale deeds was specifically pleaded in the written statement. No explanation has come forward

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.02.05 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

C.R. No.4297 of 2017 (O&M) -2-

¶19

as to how sale deeds could not be placed, despite exercise of due diligence. He further submitted that the application for additional evidence is just an attempt to fill up the lacuna, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit. Defendants were aware of the sale deeds and failed to place on record. Such a lacuna cannot be permitted to be filled up. Even if the documents sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence are per se admissible being public documents, they are subject to mode of proof as per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence, which will unnecessary delay the adjudication of the suit filed 2012.

¶21

In view of the aforementioned, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and the same cannot be said to be passed without jurisdiction. The impugned order is upheld and the revision petition is dismissed.

¶22

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
February 01,	2019
Pankaj*
	Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes
	Whether Reportable No

¶23

PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.02.05 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mohit and Ors. v. Rishpal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit and Ors. v. Rishpal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charanjeet Singh and Ors. Vs Gurdarshan Singh and Ors.

Didar Singh Vs Principal, Sri Guru Gobind Singh College and Ors.

Gurdev Singh & Ors. Vs Joginder Singh Deceased through Lrs Mewa Singh and Anr.

Municipal Corporation Kotfatta and Anr. Vs Gaura Devi and Ors.

Ranbir Singh Vs Navdeep Kaur

Ranbir Singh Vs Navdeep Kaur