Ved Parkash vs M/S. Niskomal Estate P Ltd. And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 16796 P&H

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126754




                                                                              1
CR-1600 of 2019


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                  CR-1600 of 2019
                                  Reserved on: 14.09.2023
                                  Pronounced on: 27.09.2023
Ved Parkash
                                                                ......Petitioner
                    Versus

M/s Niskomal Estate (P) Ltd. and others
                                                             ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present: -    Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate,
              for the petitioner.

              Ms. Pooja Chhabra, Advocate,
              for Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate,
              for respondent No.2.

              Mr. Ombar Chauhan, Advocate,
              for respondents No.6 and 7.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order

dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat, whereby application filed by the

petitioner to produce on record the statement of account by way of

additional evidence, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present revision

petition are that petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific

performance of the contract of agreement to sell dated 27.03.2008 with

consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of

the suit, petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC for

production of statement of account in respect of cheque No.864173

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126754

CR-1600 of 2019

dated 20.04.2011 amounting to Rs.15 lacs by way of additional

evidence, which has been dismissed vide impugned order by the Court

of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat.

3. Learned counsel or the petitioner contended that factum of

statement of account was though pleaded in the plaint but the same

could not be established in evidence despite due diligence. He further

contended that plaintiffs closed their evidence of their own. He further

contended that a party should not be made to suffer for an error on the

part of its counsel. He further contended that if something remains

obscure can be filled in by way of additional evidence. In support of

his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

judgment of this Court in Hazara Singh v. Bachan Singh, 1998(2)

R.C.R.(Civil) 357.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended

that application of the petitioner-plaintiffs has rightly been dismissed

by the trial Court. It was further contended that plaintiffs availed about

11 opportunities to lead their evidence and they themselves closed their

evidence. It was further contended that despite availing numerous

opportunities, plaintiffs did not show due diligence to produce the

evidence now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence. It

was further contended that the application was filed only to delay the

proceedings.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126754

CR-1600 of 2019

6. Perusal of the record shows that factum of statement of

account was pleaded in the plaint, however, due to fault on the part of

the counsel plaintiff, could not establish the same in evidence. It may

be noted here that in Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil Nadu vs.

Union of India AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3353, it has been held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that notwithstanding the deletion of Order 18

Rule 17-A of CPC, on a party satisfying the Court that after exercise of

due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not

be produced at the time the party was leading evidence, the Court may

permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on such terms as may

appear to be just. In the present case, this Court is of the considered

opinion that ends of justice would be met if one effective opportunity is

granted to the petitioner to produce and prove the said document by

way of additional evidence, subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to

the respondents. However, the respondent shall also be given an

effective opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the petitioner

by way of additional evidence, if so required.

6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated

18.07.2018 is set aside. The revision petition is allowed in the

aforementioned terms. Interim order dated 07.03.2019 stands vacated.

                                               (NAMIT KUMAR)
27.09.2023                                        JUDGE
R.S.

             Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No

             Whether Reportable                :      Yes/No


                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126754

                                 3 of 3