Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajbir vs Kishan Chand And Others on 2 April, 2024
CR-1943-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:044526 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CR-1943-2024 (O&M) Date of decision:02.04.2024 Rajbir ... Petitioner Vs. Kishan Chand & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR. Present: Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sunita Shekhawats, Advocate and Mr. Aman Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Gurugram, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for leading the rebuttal evidence has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts for adjudication of the present revision petition are that the plaintiffs filed CS/00/8104/2014 for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Gurugram. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants. Defendant No.1 came present and filed written statement controverting the pleas and averments made in the plaint. The issues were framed as per the pleadings of the parties. Thereafter oral evidence in the affirmative by the plaintiff/petitioner was closed on 02.02.2016. Subsequently, defendants moved an application for leading additional evidence which was allowed on 28.02.2018. After closing of the defendants evidence the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of the HARJEET KAUR 2024.04.08 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH CR-1943-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:044526 plaintiff/petitioner. Vide order dated 28.02.2018 the proceedings were adjourned for rebuttal evidence. Thereafter the petitioner filed application dated 06.02.2024 for tendering judgments and record in rebuttal evidence before the trial Court which was dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order dated 04.03.2024. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff has knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing of the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that vide application dated 06.02.2024, plaintiffs seek to tender certain judgments relating to lands adjoining and similar to the suit land whereby the cultivators/possessory right holders have been declared to be owners of the lands. He has further contended that in addition to these judgments, the plaintiffs also want to tender into evidence the other judgments of the trial Court wherein the trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and they have been declared to be owners. He has submitted that the plaintiffs also seek to tender into evidence certain surrender deeds executed by the tenants surrendering the lands to the real estate developers in lands similar to the plaintiffs herein whereby rights of the tenants have been recognized on the basis of surrender deeds having been executed by the tenants in favour of real estate developers. He has further submitted that these documents came from judicial and official records and no oral evidence was required to be led in order to prove these documents and it would not cause any prejudice to the defendants/respondents rather it will assist the trial Court to arrive at a judicious decision of the suit pending before it. He has argued that the application of the petitioner for leading rebuttal evidence was illegally HARJEET KAUR 2024.04.08 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH CR-1943-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:044526 dismissed in a hyper technical manner while passing the impugned order and it is in contravention of the principles of natural justice. As per the order dated 02.02.2016 only affirmative evidence of the petitioner had been closed and the plaintiffs' right to lead rebuttal evidence was still open and this fact has not been appreciated by the trial Court that the proceedings were pending for leading of rebuttal evidence. The trial Court has dismissed the plaintiffs' application for leading the rebuttal evidence thus restraining the plaintiffs from putting forth their best case in violation of principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that the judgments that are to be produced into rebuttal evidence are judicial pronouncement of adjoining and similar lands to that of the land in dispute in the present case, which would enable the trial Court to arrive at a judicial conclusion of the present matter. The surrender deeds sought to be tendered into rebuttal evidence clearly depict the nature of relation between the landlords and tenants across the village of the plaintiffs/petitioner. So it would be in the interest of justice that if the application of the plaintiff to lead the rebuttal evidence is allowed and the impugned order under revision is set aside.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the records.
5. Vide the impugned order the request of the petitioner for tendering into evidence the judgments relating to other property of the same village rendered by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court and surrender deeds was declined by the trial Court and it has been held that such like evidence cannot be given in the rebuttal evidence.
6. It is the trite law that the plaintiff cannot lead evidence in HARJEET KAUR 2024.04.08 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH CR-1943-2024 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:044526 rebuttal on issues on which the onus to prove was on the plaintiff. So the trial Court has rightly held that the judgment relating to other properties of the same village rendered by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court cannot be produced in the rebuttal evidence. As onus to prove issue No.1 was upon the plaintiffs, so the said evidence was mandatorily required to be led in the affirmative.
7. In the light of the above, the impugned order is well reasoned order and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
8. Thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, no interference therewith is called for while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The present revision petition being bereft of any merits stands dismissed.
10. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move an application for leading of the additional evidence if he so desires before the trial Court and if any such application is moved by the petitioner, then it will be decided by the trial Court as per law.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( SUKHVINDER KAUR ) JUDGE 02.04.2024 harjeet
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No HARJEET KAUR 2024.04.08 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH