Pardeep Kumar Alias Pardeep Sood vs Jagdish Rai Sood And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 8414 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pardeep Kumar Alias Pardeep Sood vs Jagdish Rai Sood And Others on 22 April, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054150




                                                2024:PHHC:054150
142 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                          CR-1599-2023 (O&M)
                                          Date of decision: 22.04.2024

Pardeep Kumar @ Pardeep Sood
                                                ....Petitioner

            Versus

Jagdish Raj Sood and others
                                                ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:-   Mr.Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

1. The petitioner before this Court is a judgment debtor.

Execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 is pending. He has filed an application for striking off

the affidavit of witness AW5 Jagdish Rai Sood, who has appeared as

witness and for de-exhibiting certain documents. The Executing Court

has dismissed the application.

2. Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner at

length and with his able assistance perused the paperbook.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that

irrelevant evidence cannot be permitted to be led. He submits that under

Section 151 CPC, the court should strike off the irrelevant evidence and

de-exhibit documents.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel representing the petitioner.

5. There is no statutory provision requiring the court to strike

off or delete the evidence which has already been led. The attention of

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054150

CR-1599-2023 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:054150

the Court has also not been drawn to any provision which requires the

court to de-exhibit the documents, which have been produced in any

case and marked as exhibits. The position will be different when the

court finally decides the matter. At that stage, the court can ignore the

irrelevant documentary as well as oral evidence, however, at an

interlocutory stage, it would not be appropriate to issue directions to the

court to de-exhibit or strike off the oral evidence from the record.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere

is made out.

7. Hence, dismissed.

8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

22.04.2024                                      (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No
Whether reportable :                Yes/No




                                  2 of 2