Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar And Anr vs Inderjit Singh And Ors on 29 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058717
2024:PHHC:058717
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-3196-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.04.2024
Raj Kumar and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Inderjit Singh and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. D.S.Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioners
None for the respondents
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. Case has been called out twice. Learned counsel
representing respondent no.1 to 5 did not come forward to assist the
Court. The only point in issue, which requires adjudication is as to
"whether the consenting defendants can be permitted to lead evidence
after their evidence has been closed?"
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present
case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. Sh.Inderjit Singh, Narpal Singh and Harpal Singh sons of
Sh.Dayal Singh alias Deen Dayal alongwith Smt.Pushpa, daughter-in-
law of Sh.Dayal Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the
plaintiffs are owners in possession of certain land. Various other reliefs
were sought. Sh.Dayal Singh @ Deen Dayal was impleaded as
defendant no.4. The plaintiffs concluded their evidence on 25.07.2018.
Thereafter, the defendants were called upon to lead evidence. Contesting
defendant no.1 to 4 concluded their evidence on 26.02.2019.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058717
CR-3196-2022 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:058717
At that stage, defendant no.4 was ex-parte. Subsequently, defendant
no.4 filed an application to set aside the ex-parte proceedings. He
contested the case. The application was allowed. However, thereafter,
he filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs.
Subsequently, he filed an affidavit in evidence, which was opposed by
the contesting defendants by filing an application.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that
the matter in issue is covered by a Division Bench in Harminder Pal
and another vs. Pritam Dass and others 1990 (2) RCR (Rent) 518.
5. Para 6 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
representing the petitioners reads as under:-
"6. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and going through the case law cited at the bar we
are of the considered view that the party who admits on
supports the claim of the plaintiff, could be allowed to lead
evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim before the
contesting defendants called upon to lead evidence. Once
the contesting defendant is called upon to lead evidence and
closes the same, then the consenting defendant cannot be
allowed to lead evidence in support of plaintiff's claim. In
other words, once a party admits the plaintiff's claim, it
steps into bit shoes and will lead evidence, if any, alongwith
the plaintiff. Once the contesting defendants are allowed to
lead evidence then at that stage the consenting defendant
could not be allowed to fill up the lacuna of the plaintiff's
case. In Chhailu Ram's case (supra) the consenting
defendants were allowed to lead evidence after the plaintiff
had closed his evidence, At that stage, an objection was
taken on behalf of the contesting defendants that the said
defendant was not entitled to lead evidence. It was in that
situation that it was held by this Court that the said
defendant should be given an opportunity to lead his
evidence before the contesting defendants could lead their
evidence. In Subhash Chander's case(supra) the consenting
defendant wanted to be transposed as plaintiff and then lead
evidence in support of plaintiff's claim which application
was dismissed by the trial Court. It was, therefore, held that
the Court had every right to permit such defendant though
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058717
CR-3196-2022 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:058717
by order to examine any witness at any stage. In Nanak
Chand's case (supra) it was observed that "I have no doubt,
that when an issue of fact arises between the plaintiff and
one of the defendants the other defendants who support the
plaintiff's case cannot be prevented from examining
evidence on that issue." It is, therefore, evident that in all
these cases the consenting defendant was allowed to lead
evidence in support of the plaintiffs case at the stage when
the plaintiff was leading his evidence. In none of the cases
referred to above, it has been held that the consenting
defendant is entitled to lead evidence in support of the
plaintiff's claim even after the contesting defendants have
closed the evidence."
6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the parties.
7. It is evident that the consenting defendants cannot be
allowed to lead evidence in support of the plaintiffs because after the
contesting defendants have led the evidence, it will result in prejudicing
the case of the contesting defendants.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the revision petition is
allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court on 20.07.2022 is
set aside.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
29.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
