Single judge allowed revision permitting petitioner to produce per se admissible documentary evidence in additional evidence in a pending declaration suit regarding a forged will.
The order under challenge set aside; petitioner permitted to produce documents in additional evidence.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
111
CR No. 6486 of 2017 Date of decision : 10.8.2022
Rupinder Singh ……Petitioner
Vs.
Kuldeep Singh and others ……Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. A.S. Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner (defendant No.1A) in a suit for grant of decree of declaration alleges that the Will dated 26.8.2003 allegedly executed by late Sh. Mela Singh in favour of Narender Pal Singh is forged and fabricated document.
His prayer for permitting the production of copy of jamabandi, khasra girdawari and a previous order of the Court in a separate suit, in additional evidence has been declined. The suit is still pending. Most of the documents sought to be produced are per se admissible. The trial Court has declined to grant permission on the ground that the petitioner failed to bring on record any circumstance showing his inability to produce the evidence previously.
Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
It is a well settled principle that the rules of procedure are for advancing the cause of justice, rather than impeding it. While deciding the cases, the Court is required to make a sincere attempt for doing substantive ASHWANI KUMAR 2022.08.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR No. 6486 of 2017
-2-
justice between the parties while following the procedural law. In absence of specific bar, the Court should be lenient in permitting the parties to produce the documentary evidence, which is per se admissible.
Hence, the revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to produce the documents in additional evidence.
10.8.2022
Ashwani
( ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No
ASHWANI KUMAR 2022.08.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court could be directed to permit the production of per se admissible documents in additional evidence despite the lack of specific evidence showing inability to produce them earlier
Rupinder Singh
Kuldeep Singh
ANIL KSHETARPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
