Mangal Singh vs Land Scape Builders Ltd And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1834 P&H

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
117
                                                           CR-737-2020
                                            Date of decision: 21.03.2022

Mangal                                                         .....Petitioner

                                  Versus

Land Scape Builders Limited, New Delhi and anr              .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present :   Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                    ****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner-plaintiff No.1 is impugning the orders dated

25.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram

(Annexure P/6) vide which the appeal preferred against the order dated

29.02.2016 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurugram was

dismissed. In addition, a challenge has been laid to an order of even

date vide which an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff No.1

under Order 41 Rule 27 for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned orders deserve to be set aside as they were passed without

appreciating the fact that the learned appellate Court had partly allowed

the appeal in the main case in favour of the petitioner vide judgment

dated 20.10.2016. He further submits that due to inadvertence the

certified copy of the judgment dated 20.10.2016 could not be placed on

record whereby it was held that the petitioner-plaintiff No.1 and

plaintiff No.2 had been in possession of the suit property since long and

they could not be dispossessed.

Learned counsel submits that it would result in miscarriage

1 of 2

of justice and his case would be gravely prejudiced if the above said

judgment dated 20.10.2016 passed by the learned appellate Court is not

permitted to be placed on record by way of additional evidence moreso,

since it was material for the just adjudication of the dispute in question.

In view of the above, without issuing notice to the

respondents, to avoid any further delay as well as the expenses which

they shall have to incur to defend these proceedings coupled with the

fact that certified copy of the judgment is per se admissible, the

impugned orders dated 25.04.2019 are set aside. The instant revision

petition is allowed subject to payment of costs in the sum of

Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondents which shall be a condition

precedent. The appellate Court would decide the case i.e. Civil Misc.

Appeal No.92 of 28.03.2016/06.11.2017 (CIS No.CMA-51-2016)

afresh in accordance with the provisions of law, after the certified copy

of the judgment dated 20.10.2016 has been placed on record by the

petitioner-plaintiff No.1.

It is made clear that the petitioner-plaintiff No.1 is being

granted only one effective opportunity to lead additional evidence by

placing on record the copy of certified judgment dated 20.10.2016.

21.03.2022                                 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay                                             JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                 2 of 2