Sahiram Vs Yad Ram and Others

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by learned trial Court, whereby, an application for additional evidence, filed at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff, was dismissed.

¶14

Upon notice issued, the contesting respondent No.1 made appearance through counsel.

¶15

Counsel for the parties heard.

¶16

The facts germane, to be noticed, are as herein given:-

¶17

That, initially, petitioner-plaintiff Sahiram together with Banwari Lal-

¶18

proforma respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the

¶19

VINEET GULATI 2026.02.24 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CR-8055-2018

¶21

-2-

¶22

contesting respondents to restrain them from opening window, ventilator, door, nali, parnala and constructed chajja/aperture of their house towards the joint passage, as detailed in the site plan and also sought mandatory direction to direct the defendants to remove the encroachment made by them in joint land and also, that suit be treated as suit for possession to this effect, further if the defendants are successful to open window, ventilator, door, nali, parnala and construct chajja/aperture of their house, towards the passage, as shown in red colour in the site plan, during the pendency of the present suit and the same be closed and removed by restoring the property to its original position.

¶23

The said suit was contested by the respondents-defendants. Issues were framed and thereupon, evidence was led by the parties.

¶24

When the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence, an application for additional evidence was filed, copy whereof is Annexure P-1. In the same, it has been stated that the suit was filed on 24.03.2017 and vide order dated 28.03.2017, status-quo regarding the suit property was ordered to be maintained. However, construction work continued over the disputed land, violating the order dated 28.03.2017. On 29.03.2017, contempt petition under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC was filed. Therein, it was alleged that defendant-Yad Ram continued his construction activity, on the dispute land, despite the status-quo order. The local commissioner was appointed to visit the spot and to furnish the report. The needful was done, in the presence of the respondent-defendant Yad Ram.

¶25

Further, it is averred in the application that Yad Ram appeared as DW-1 in the witness box and he had specifically refused that no local

¶26

VINEET GULATI 2026.02.24 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CR-8055-2018

¶28

-3-

¶29

commissioner visited the spot, in his presence. In this context, it was further averred in the application that it has become important to bring the local commissioner report dated 03.05.2017, on the Court file and also want to exhibit the jamabandi for the year 2011-2012, which is already on the file.

¶30

In reply, the respondents contested the application.

¶31

After hearing counsel for the parties and on appraisal of the material brought on record, vide impugned order dated 25.10.2018, the application for additional evidence, was dismissed.

¶32

As culled out from paperbook, the evidence of the petitionerplaintiff was closed by order of the Court on 21.04.2018 and thereafter, the defendants had led evidence. Furthermore, when the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence, the application for additional evidence was filed. Considering the nature of the suit filed, at the instance of the petitionerplaintiff and the relief sought, as detailed aforesaid, it was required, on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff to lead entire evidence to substantiate his version.

¶33

Also, from the contents of the application for additional evidence, it is evident that soon after the order of status-quo was passed by the Court, there was stated to be continuity of the construction activity, at the instance of the respondents and the contempt proceedings were initiated. Even, the local commissioner was allegedly appointed and report was furnished. Thereafter, the evidence was led by the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs did not bother, at the relevant stage, to prove the report of the local commissioner. It was only after one of the defendants, stepped into witness

¶34

box and denied about the visit of the local commissioner, the aforesaid

¶35

VINEET GULATI 2026.02.24 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

CR-8055-2018

¶37

-4-

¶38

application was filed.

¶39

There is nothing on record to show the petitioner-plaintiff could not produce their evidence, relating to the report of the local commissioner, in spite of exercise of due diligence. In the light of the same, when the petitioner-plaintiff, at earlier instance, had an opportunity to lead evidence, but did not lead evidence and their evidence was closed by order, now by virtue of additional evidence, he cannot be allowed to produce the report of the local commissioner, in the manner, as now sought for. Rather, he wants to adjust his evidence, in accord with the testimony of the DW-1, more particularly, when the evidence, which is now sought to be produced in additional evidence, could be produced, during the stage, when the case was fixed for his evidence and he did not produce the same and nothing is coming on record that the same could not be produced, in spite of exercise of due diligence.

¶40

Under these circumstances, the petitioner-plaintiff would not be entitled to produce additional evidence, more particularly, considering the stage of the case, at the time of filing of the application.

¶41

Hence, the impugned order of dismissal of the application for additional evidence, brooks no interference, by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶42

Thus, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶43

February 17, 2026 (ARCHANA PURI) Vgulati JUDGE

¶44

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

¶45

Yes Yes/No

¶46

VINEET GULATI 2026.02.24 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sahiram v. Yad Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahiram v. Yad Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh & Ors. Vs Ajay Kumar & Ors.

Gurkamalpreet Singh Vs Dilpreet Singh and Others

Madhukar Malik Vs Payal Malik

Neelam Vs Ankit

Sammera Goyal Vs Sarwan Singh and Ors.

Ashok Goyal and Ors. Vs Sarwan Singh and Ors.