Allowed¶59

Dhire v. Randhir and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2025CR/2617/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Additional evidence; demarcation report; Local Commissioner; Order 26 Rule 9 CPC; Section 151 CPC; concealment of material facts in writ petition CWP-23214-2016; conduct of party seeking additional evidence; revisional jurisdiction; suit for possession of agricultural land; khasra No.1375 / khasra No.1376; Khewat No.80/84 min; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CR-2617-2017(O&M); Archana Puri, J.; decision 08.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.03.2017 set aside; application for leading additional evidence dismissed; revision petition allowed. ¶59

Dhire Vs Randhir and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 04.03.2017 set aside; application for leading additional evidence dismissed; revision petition allowed.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court rightly allowed the contesting respondents'-plaintiffs' application for leading additional evidence (placing on record the demarcation report dated 07.12.2016 and other documents) vide the impugned order dated 04.03.2017. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

Although any evidence which the Court deems essential for adjudication of the controversy can be allowed, various circumstances vis-a-vis the conduct of the party who seeks leading of the additional evidence ought to be taken into consideration.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Close perusal of the civil writ petition reveals that, though the previous applications for appointment of Local Commissioner and additional evidence were mentioned, there was no mention of the third application and its outcome; in this manner, while concealing the material fact, the order was obtained from this Court with regard to issuance of directions to the authorities concerned.

¶52

Key takeaways

Nothing comes on record to show that the petitioners-defendants were associated in the demarcation process, and the demarcation was obtained at the fag end, after filing multiple applications for appointment of the Local Commissioner which had been dismissed by the learned trial Court.ratio¶53
No satisfactory reasoning was given by the trial Court for allowing the application; the observation that a second/new demarcation report would assist the Court in proper comparison of reports is no reason to allow the application when earlier multiple applications filed at the instance of the respondents-plaintiffs were dismissed, particularly when the writ petition made no reference to the third demarcation application and its dismissal with adverse observations on the respondents' conduct.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CR-2617-2017(O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 08.05.2025 (Archana Puri, J.) - Revision by the defendant (Dhire through LRs) against the trial Court's order dated 04.03.2017 allowing the contesting respondents (plaintiffs in a suit for possession of khasra No.1375, 1/3rd share, with encroached portion 'ABCDEFG' alleged to be part of defendants' khasra No.1376) to lead additional evidence, viz., a demarcation report dated 07.12.2016. Held: (i) evidence the Court deems essential may be allowed, but the conduct of the party seeking additional evidence must be weighed; (ii) the plaintiffs' record showed a Local Commissioner appointed at their instance (08.09.2010) whose report was to be considered at disposal of the suit (order 06.02.2012), a second Local Commissioner application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC dismissed (21.03.2013), an application to prove an older Local Commissioner report (Hoshiyar Singh Girdwar, Civil Suit No.269/94) dismissed (18.07.2014) with the revision thereon (CR-49932014) also dismissed (27.11.2015), and a third Local Commissioner application dismissed (07.09.2016) with observations that the plaintiff was habitual of moving successive applications apparently to delay proceedings; (iii) the writ petition CWP-23214-2016 concealed the third application and its outcome, and the order directing demarcation was thus obtained by suppressing material facts; (iv) the demarcation (07.12.2016) was conducted at the fag end without associating the defendants; (v) the trial Court gave no satisfactory reasons, mere comparison of two demarcation reports being no ground to allow the application. Impugned order set aside; application for additional evidence dismissed; revision allowed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR-2617-2017(O&M) Date of Decision: May 08, 2025

Dhire through LRs

...Petitioner

Versus

Randhir and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶9

Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Ms.Bindu Tanwar and Mr.Reetesh Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Sumit Gupta, Advocate for contesting respondents No.1 and 2.

¶11

¶12

ARCHANA PURI, J.

¶13

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 04.03.2017 passed by learned trial Court, whereby, an application filed by the contesting respondents (plaintiff before learned trial Court), for leading additional evidence, was allowed.

¶14

In pursuance of the notice issued, contesting respondents made appearance through counsel.

¶15

Learned counsel for the parties heard.

¶16

The essential facts, to be noticed, as culled out from the

¶17

paperbook are as follows:-

¶18

That, initially, the respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) had filed a suit

¶19

VINEET GULATI 2025.05.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CR-2617-2017

¶21

-2-

¶22

for possession of the suit land, therein stating that they are owners of khasra No.1375 to the extent of 1/3rd share, in the land comprised in Khewat No.80/84 min, Khatoni No.214 min 2 Bigha 19 Biswas and that the petitioner and another (defendants) are owner of Khasra No.1376 and now, defendants have encroached upon Khasra No.1375, shown in the site plan as ‘ABCDEFG’.

¶23

The petitioner-defendant made appearance and filed the written statement, thereby, asserting about respondents-plaintiffs to be neither owners nor in possession of the suit property and the suit land ‘ABCDEFG’ is part of Khasra No.1376.

¶24

During the pendency of the said suit, an application was filed for appointment of the Local Commissioner and vide order dated 08.09.2010, Sh.Virender Singh, Advocate, who was present in the Court, at the relevant time, was appointed as Local Commissioner. Thereupon, report was submitted before the trial Court and thereupon, learned trial Court had passed the order dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) and the essential part of the said order is reproduced in verbatim, as herein given:-

¶25

“On perusal of the case file, it is noticed that vide the order dated 8.9.2010, Shri Virender Singh, Advocate was appointed as the Local Commissioner in the present case with the direction to report about the existing position of the suit property regarding construction, if any raised over the same. The report of the Local Commissioner has since been received and opportunity for objections to the report was provided. In these circumstances there is no requirement for arguments on the report of the Local Commissioner because the report of the

¶26

VINEET GULATI 2025.05.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CR-2617-2017 -3-

¶28

LC shall be considered at the time of disposing of the suit. Hence, on the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed:-

¶29

XXXX XXX XX XXXX

¶30

No other issue is pressed or claimed before me. The burden of proof is not disputed. Let the PWs be now produced on 30.5.2012 at own responsibility. The list of witnesses, DM, if any, be filed within 15 days.”

¶31

After framing of the issues, the case was adjourned for production of witnesses for 30.05.2012. Thereafter, the contesting respondents again moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, for appointment of Local Commissioner, which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 21.03.2013, while stating that the report of the Local Commissioner is already on record and there is no need to appoint another Local Commissioner. Further, it was also observed that moreover, the plaintiffs are at liberty to demarcate his land by approaching the revenue authorities. The copy of the order dated 21.03.2013 is Annexure P-2. Thereafter, again respondents-plaintiffs led evidence and their evidence was closed by order.

¶32

After the evidence was led by the plaintiffs, the evidence of the defendants was also recorded and the same was closed by order vide order dated 26.05.2014 and the matter was adjourned to 03.07.2014 for rebuttal evidence, if any and for arguments. The order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-4), to this effect, is reproduced in verbatim, as herein given:-

¶33

“Today cross-examination of PW-Dheer Singh is completed.

¶34

VINEET GULATI 2025.05.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

CR-2617-2017

¶36

-4-

¶37

Learned counsel for the defendant tendered a document Ex.D-8 to D-10 & 10/T and mark E and closed the defendant evidence. Now matter is adjourned to 03.07.2014 for rebuttal evidence, if any and for arguments”.

¶38

Thereafter, an application for leading additional evidence, by which, the respondents-plaintiffs intended to bring on record the report of the Local Commissioner, made by one Hoshiyar Singh Girdwar in Civil Suit No.269/94 and to call said Hoshiyar Singh Girdwar to prove the said report. But however, the said application was again dismissed by learned trial Court, vide order dated 18.07.2014, copy whereof is Annexure P-5. To assail the order dated 18.07.2014, the respondents-plaintiffs filed CR-49932014 and the said revision petition was also dismissed by this Court on 27.11.2015. The copy of the said order is Annexure P-6.

¶39

Subsequent to the said order, again, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application for appointment of the Local Commissioner on 24.02.2016 and this was the 3^rd application filed and even the said application was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 07.09.2016, copy whereof is Annexure P-7. Therein, it was specifically observed by learned trial Court that from filing of this 3^rd application, for the same purpose, it appears that the plaintiff intends to secure the Local Commissioner report through a revenue official of his choice and may be of his favour and further also, an observation was made that perusal of the file reveals that the plaintiff is habitual of moving applications, one after the another and his only intention, appears to be to delay the Court proceedings.

¶40

VINEET GULATI 2025.05.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

CR-2617-2017 -5-

¶42

It was only after the dismissal of the application for appointment of Local Commissioner that the contesting respondent-plaintiff had filed CWP23214-2016 before this Court, stating therein, that he had made representation dated 16.09.2016 to the respondent authorities and the same has not been decided. This Court had disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 09.11.2016, while issuing directions to the authorities to decide the representation. The copy of the said order is Annexure P-8. On the basis of the aforesaid order, demarcation was got conducted by respondents-plaintiffs on 07.12.2016 and thereafter, again on 18.01.2017, another application for additional evidence, was filed before the trial Court, for placing on record the copy of the demarcation report dated 07.12.2016 and various other documents and reply to the same, was also filed. The said application was allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.03.2017.

¶43

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

¶44

No doubt, time and again, it has been held by the Courts that any evidence, which the Court deems essential for the adjudication of the controversy, can be allowed by the Court, but however, various circumstances, spelt out, vis-a-vis, the conduct of the party, who seeks leading of the additional evidence, ought to be taken into consideration. In the case in hand, the respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession. The dispute relates to Khasra No.1375 and part of the same, having encroached by the petitioners-defendants who own Khasra No.1376. It was VINEET GULATI 2025.05.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶45

CR-2617-2017

¶46

-6-

¶47

on this pretext that the suit for restoration of possession was filed. Meaning thereby, the position was very clear to the respondents-plaintiffs, at the time of filing of the suit about the relief sought by them. In the case in hand, at first instance, vide order dated 08.09.2010, the Local Commissioner was appointed by the Court, at the behest of the respondents-plaintiffs and the report had come and the same was taken on record by learned trial Court and it was specifically observed in the order dated 06.02.2012, before framing of issues that said the report, shall be considered, at the time of disposing of the suit.

¶48

Again, second application for appointment of Local Commissioner was filed and the same was dismissed and thereafter, application for additional evidence to prove the report of Local Commissioner, appointed in Civil Suit No.269/94, was filed and the same was also dismissed by learned trial Court and specifically, it was observed therein that no such evidence, can be adduced. It was assailed before this Court by filing revision petition and the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2015. Thereupon, an application was filed for appointment of the Local Commissioner, which is 3^rd application, to demarcate the suit property, but however, considering the manner of filing of the application and the stage of the filing of the application, the same was dismissed by learned trial Court. Rather, an observation was made about the intention of the plaintiff to secure the Local Commissioner’s report, through revenue official of his choice and further, it was observed that ‘may be of his favour’. Also, it was observed that plaintiff is habitual of moving the

¶49

VINEET GULATI 2025.05.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶50

CR-2617-2017 -7-

¶51

applications, one after the another and his only intention, appears to delay the proceedings.

¶52

Thereupon, the civil writ petition was filed. However, the copy of the civil writ petition has been placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner. Close perusal of the same reveals that the previous applications filed for appointment of Local Commissioner and of additional evidence were though mentioned, but however, there was no mention made about the 3^rd application having so filed and the outcome of the same and in this manner, while concealing the material fact, the order was obtained from this Court, with regard to the issuance of directions to the authorities concerned.

¶53

In this backdrop, demarcation report was again submitted. Nothing, as such, is coming on record, about the petitioners-defendants to have been associated in the demarcation process and this too was obtained at the fag end, after filing multiple applications for appointment of the Local Commissioner, which have been dismissed by learned trial Court.

¶54

Considering the same, at this stage, looking at the manner of obtaining of the order from this Court and consequently, demarcation got conducted, as such, cannot be brought on record, in the manner, as now sought for. Furthermore, it is also necessary to note that no satisfactory reasoning has been given by the trial Court for allowing the application. It only mention that if there is one demarcation report conducted, the second report, even if it comes, new demarcation report will only assist the Court, for proper comparison of the reports, to decide the dispute effectively. However, this is no reason, to allow the application, when earlier multiple

¶55

VINEET GULATI 2025.05.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶56

CR-2617-2017 -8-

¶57

applications filed at the instance of the respondents-plaintiffs, were dismissed, more particularly, when in the writ petition, there was no reference made to the 3^rd application for demarcation filed and particularly, of the dismissal of the same, with observations made by learned trial Court, with regard to the conduct of the respondents.

¶58

Considering the aforesaid seriatim of facts, as spelt out, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is erroneous, which warrants interference, while exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned order dated 04.03.2017 is set aside and the application for leading additional evidence is dismissed.

¶59

In view of the aforesaid observations, the revision petition is hereby allowed.

¶60

May 08, 2025 (ARCHANA PURI) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶61

VINEET GULATI 2025.05.15 08:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 04.03.2017 of the learned trial Court allowing the application filed by the contesting respondents (plaintiffs before the trial Court) for leading additional evidence (demarcation report dated 07.12.2016 and other documents).¶13
learned trial Court · 04.03.2017
Prior proceeding
Respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession of the suit land, claiming ownership of khasra No.1375 to the extent of 1/3rd share (Khewat No.80/84 min, Khatoni No.214 min, 2 Bigha 19 Biswas); the petitioner and another (defendants) own khasra No.1376 and were alleged to have encroached upon khasra No.1375, shown in the site plan as 'ABCDEFG'.¶22
Prior proceeding
Petitioner-defendant made appearance and filed the written statement, asserting that respondents-plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit property and that the suit land 'ABCDEFG' is part of khasra No.1376.¶23
Prior proceeding
During pendency of the suit, an application for appointment of Local Commissioner was allowed and Sh. Virender Singh, Advocate, was appointed as Local Commissioner vide order dated 08.09.2010; report was submitted before the trial Court.¶24
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 06.02.2012 (Annexure P-1), the trial Court noted that the Local Commissioner's report had been received, opportunity for objections was provided, and the report shall be considered at the time of disposing of the suit; issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties and the case was adjourned for production of witnesses for 30.05.2012.¶28
Prior proceeding
Contesting respondents again moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner; it was dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that the Local Commissioner's report was already on record and the plaintiffs were at liberty to demarcate their land through the revenue authorities; thereafter the respondents-plaintiffs again led evidence and their evidence was closed by order.¶31
Prior proceeding
Defendants' evidence was recorded and closed by order vide order dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-4); cross-examination of PW-Dheer Singh was completed, documents Ex.D-8 to D-10 & 10/T and mark E tendered, and the matter was adjourned to 03.07.2014 for rebuttal evidence, if any, and for arguments.¶32
Prior proceeding
Respondents-plaintiffs filed an application for leading additional evidence, intending to bring on record the report of the Local Commissioner made by one Hoshiyar Singh Girdwar in Civil Suit No.269/94 and to call him to prove the said report.¶38
Prior proceeding
The said additional-evidence application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure P-5).¶38
Prior proceeding
To assail the order dated 18.07.2014, the respondents-plaintiffs filed CR-49932014, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.11.2015 (Annexure P-6).¶38
Prior proceeding
Subsequent to the said order, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a third application for appointment of the Local Commissionner on 24.02.2016.¶39
Prior proceeding
The third application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure P-7), with observations that the plaintiff appeared to intend to secure the Local Commissioner's report through a revenue official of his choice and may be of his favour, and that the plaintiff was habitual of moving applications one after another, his only intention appearing to be to delay the Court proceedings.¶39
Prior proceeding
Only after dismissal of the Local Commissioner application did the contesting respondent-plaintiff file CWP-23214-2016 before this Court, stating that he had made a representation dated 16.09.2016 to the revenue authorities which remained undecided; this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 09.11.2016, issuing directions to the authorities to decide the representation (Annexure P-8).¶42
Prior proceeding
On the basis of the writ order, demarcation was got conducted by the respondents-plaintiffs on 07.12.2016.¶42
Prior proceeding
On 18.01.2017, another application for additional evidence was filed before the trial Court for placing on record the copy of the demarcation report dated 07.12.2016 and various other documents; a reply was also filed; the application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 04.03.2017.¶42

Dhire v. Randhir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhire v. Randhir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amandeep Kaur Vs Baljeet Singh

Anju Sharma Vs Chetan Sharma

Karmdeep Kaur Vs Mandeep Singh

Raj Singh Vs Kamaljit Kaur and Anr.

Harinder Kaur Vs Gurmukh Singh

Aanchal Saini Mehta Vs Gurkirat Singh Mehta and Others