Gram Panchayat Village Khurampur vs Krishan Kumar Ad Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1589 P&H

CR-876-2022                                                        -1-


125    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
                  (through video conferencing)

                                                     CR-876-2022
                                                     Decided on : 14.03.2022

Gram Panchayat, Village Khurampur                           ...... Petitioner

                                    Versus

Krishan Kumar and others                                    ...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present :    Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                          ****

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)

Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order

dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Div., Sonipat

whereby application for leading additional evidence filed by respondents

No.1 to 7 was allowed.

2. Respondents No.1 to 7(plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent

injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from dispossessing the

respondents No.1 to 7 from the suit land comprising in Khewat No.71

Khatoni No.71 Rectangle and Killa No.10//21 (8-0), 22/1 (4-0), 11//16/2

(0-8), 24/2 (2-4), 25/2 (7-2), 36//16/1 (5-4), 25 (8-8), 37//21(8-0), 22(8-0),

23(8-0), 47//1 (8-0), 2 (8-0), 48//1 (8-0), 2(8-0), 3(8-0), 4(8-0), 5(8-0)49//5

(9-0) total measuring 124 kanals 06 marlas situtated in the revenue estate of

village Khurampur Sub Tehsil Rai District Sonepat forcibly and also from

demolishing the tubewells, kothas and the electricity transformers installed

in the suit land of the respondents-plaintiffs.

1 of 3

3. At the stage of rebuttal evidence, the plaintiffs-respondents

filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional

evidence by stating that at the time of leading evidence on their behalf, the

certified copies of plaints and judgments and decrees titled as Ghasita and

others versus Har lal and others in Civil Suit no.117 of 1966 dated

15.01.1968 and titled as Umrao Singh versus G.P.Khurampur dated

16.01.1958 could not be produced. It was the case of the plaintiffs-

respondents that the aforementioned documents were related to the suit

property in which Civil Court had decided that the suit property vested in

the proprietors of the village and the gram panchayat had no right, title or

interest in the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant inter alia submits

that the contesting respondents(plaintiffs) were wanting to lead evidence

beyond their pleadings and which has been erroneously allowed by the

Court below. Learned counsel further submits that not only did the Court

below misinterpret the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in

K.K.Velusamy vs. N.Palaanisamy, 2011(11) SCC 275 but had also

erroneously held that the evidence, which the plaintiffs-respondents were

wanting to lead by way of additional evidence, was per se admissible in

evidence, without appreciating that the documents in Urdu without Hindi

translation, could not be per se admissible in evidence.

5. Heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material on

record.

6. The plaintiffs-respondents moved an application under Order

41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence by furnishing additional

documents i.e. certified copies of plaints and judgments dated 15.01.1968

2 of 3

and 16.01.1958 respectively passed by Civil Court and Revenue Court

respectively. Admittedly, these documents relate to the suit property

wherein it was held that the suit property vested in the proprietors of the

village and thus, the gram panchayat had no right, title or interest in the

same. The existence of these aforementioned documents has also not been

disputed by the petitioner-gram panchayat. The Court below has rightly

observed that even though the plaintiffs-respondents did not mention about

the aforementioned documents in their pleadings, however, that evidence

could still be led during trial as it is a general rule of law that the party in its

pleadings is to only plead facts and not evidence. Hence, mere delay in

bringing the evidence on record cannot be a ground for disallowing the

application for additional evidence. Even otherwise, certified copy of the

judgment per se would be admissible in evidence. The application for

leading additional evidence was thus, rightly allowed for the proper

adjudication of the case.

7. As a sequel to above, no ground is made out to interfere in the

impugned order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the present

petition stands dismissed.

                                                 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
                                                         JUDGE

14.03.2022
sonia
             Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes/No
             Whether reportable :                      Yes/No




                                        3 of 3