Punjab-Haryana High Court
Banshi Lal vs Usha And Others on 22 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149995
CR-2462-2021 -1- 2023:PHHC:142857
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-2462-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 22.11.2023
BANSHI LAL ...Petitioner
Vs.
USHA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM:-HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Mr. Vishal Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Goyal, Advocate for the respondents.
*****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner Banshi Lal has filed civil revision petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order
dated 14.10.2021, Annexure P-4, passed by Additional District Judge,
Sonepat whereby application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking
permission to lead additional evidence has been wrongly allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant argued that the
plaintiffs i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed suit for declaration with
consequential relief of permanent injunction alleging that their predecessor
late Khushi Ram inherited ancestral property in village Nangloi Jat,
District Mehrauli from his forefather and after selling of ancestral land late
Khushi Ram purchased land in village Gohana vide different sale deeds.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149995
CR-2462-2021 -2- 2023:PHHC:142857
Therefore, it was in the hands of late Khushi Ram as their ancestral
property. It is further claimed that late Khushi Ram could not have
executed Will regarding the land in favour of Mishro Devi alias Mishri
Devi and she could not suffer a decree in favour of the defendants. In this
way, the plaintiffs claimed 1/6th share in the suit land. It is pointed out
that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was ultimately dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure P-1) and feeling aggrieved of this
judgment and decree, appeal was preferred before the First Appellate
Court in which application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed which is
Annexure P-2. The said application was contested by the contesting
respondents/defendants by filing reply which is Annexure P-3. However,
the said application has been allowed by passing impugned order dated
14.10.2021 which is Annexure P-4. It is argued that the application has
been filed at a belated stage. The respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs were
well aware of all the documents which were required to be produced.
Even then the said record was not proved on the file when the case was
fixed for their evidence. The application for additional evidence has been
filed to fill up the lacuna in the case. During the pendency of the case
before the trial Court application was filed for leading additional evidence
which is Annexure P-5 and that application was also contested by filing
reply, Annexure P-6 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide
order dated 12.02.2014 (Annexure P-7). The said order was never
challenged by the plaintiffs at that relevant time. The application filed
before the First Appellate Court seeking permission to lead additional
evidence is misuse of the process of law. Without considering these facts,
the learned First Appellate Court has wrongly allowed the application for
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149995
CR-2462-2021 -3- 2023:PHHC:142857
additional evidence by passing impugned order dated 14.10.2021
(Annexure P-4). It is prayed that the aforesaid order may kindly be set
aside by accepting the present Civil Revision.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents pointed out that the plaintiffs have based their claim by
alleging that the property in the hands of Khushi Ram was their ancestral
property regarding which he could not have executed Will in favour of
Mishro Devi @ Mishri Devi nor Mishro Devi @ Mishri Devi could have
given away the said property by suffering decree which are challenged in
the present suit. The case of the respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs is based
on the revenue record which cannot be manipulated. Therefore,
considering the nature of record required to be produced on the file by way
of additional evidence, the application was rightly allowed. The
petitioner/defendant is not going to suffer any prejudice in case the said
revenue record is taken into account while disposal of the appeal pending
before the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the Civil Revision preferred
by the petitioner/defendant may kindly be set aside.
4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the
record carefully. From the contents of judgment dated 30.10.2014
(Annexure P-1) challenged before the First Appellate Court, it is clear that
the plaintiff No.1 is the widow and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are the children of
late Ishwar Singh son of Khushi Ram who have claimed 1/6th share in the
property left behind by Khushi Ram alleging that it was ancestral property
in the hands of Khushi Ram and further challenged the mutation on the
basis of Will dated 24.02.1992 in favour of Mishro Devi @ Mishri Devi
and further challenged the judgment and decree suffered by Mishro Devi
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149995
CR-2462-2021 -4- 2023:PHHC:142857
@ Mishri Devi as detailed in the judgment. The learned trial Court
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff as a result of which appeal was
filed which is pending before the First Appellate Court. In the said appeal
the respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs filed application under Order 41 Rule
27 CPC seeking permission to place on record copy of jamabandi for the
year 1887-1888, mutation No.65, jamabandi for the year 1913-1914 till
1945-1946 and 1987-88 and mutation No.1034 in Urdu language along
with its Hindi translation by way of additional evidence. The said
application seeking permission to lead additional evidence has been
allowed by the First Appellate Court by passing impugned order dated
14.10.2021 (Annexure P-4). The nature of controversy involved in this
case is clear from the contents of the judgment passed by the trial Court
which is Annexure P-1. The respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs could have
led their evidence in affirmative when the case was fixed for their own
evidence. However, at that relevant time, the aforesaid revenue record was
not relied upon and now the respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs want to
produce the same by way of additional evidence. Since the record required
to be proved on file is the revenue record and the same cannot be tampered
with. In-fact it is an old record, therefore, for the proper and final
adjudication of the matter in controversy, the Court cannot afford to ignore
the previous revenue record consisting of jamabandi and the mutation
which was sanctioned from time to time. The application seeking
permission to lead additional evidence cannot be declined on the sole
ground as it has been filed at a belated stage. The main endeavour of the
Court is to dispose of the case on merits by relying upon the evidence led
by both the parties. Therefore, considering these facts, I do not find any
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149995
CR-2462-2021 -5- 2023:PHHC:142857
illegality or irregularity committed by the First Appellate Court by
allowing the application for additional evidence by passing impugned
order dated 14.10.2021 and the same is accordingly upheld.
5. The Civil Revision preferred by the petitioner/defendant Banshi Lal
is, accordingly, declined.
Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of.
22.11.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
snd JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:149995
5 of 5
