Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suraj And Others vs Bittu @ Puneet on 1 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
125 CR-5986-2023
Date of Decision.:01.08.2024
Suraj and Others .....Pe00oners
Vs.
Bi2u @ Puneet .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate
for the pe oners.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Pe oners are the plain ffs in civil suit bearing No. CS-260-2021
tled as "Suraj and Others v. Bi*u @ Puneet" pending in the Court of learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal. They are aggrieved by the order dated
18.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial Court, whereby their applica on
(Annexure P-3) for producing addi onal evidence has been rejected.
2. Perusal of the paper-book would reveal that by way of the suit
(plaint Annexure P-1) filed in 2021, plain ffs have challenged the legality and
validity of sale deed bearing Vasika No.2298 dated 03.09.1973 qua suit property,
executed by their father/grandfather Shri Godhu Ram in favour of grandfather of
the defendant namely Chajju Ram, on the ground of fraud and mala fide
inten on. The suit was contested by the defendant. Necessary issues were
framed. Evidence produced by the par es was taken on record.
3. Case reached at the stage of rebu*al evidence, when the
applica on (Annexure P-3) was moved, whereby plain ffs wanted to lead
addi onal evidence to produce the following documents:
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098308
• Original compromise
• Agreement to sell dated 18.05.1982
• Receipt Dated 18.05.1982
• Cer fied copy of judgment and decree dated 22.12.1984
• Photocopy of le*er of redemp on of land dated 22.12.1984
• Agreement to sell dated 22.12.1983
• Bahas Tahreer dated 22.12.1983
• Original le*er of redemp on of land dated 22.12.1984
• Original Bahies (Two) and;
• copy of Khatoni.
It was pleaded in the applica on that at the me of evidence, the above-
men oned documents were leF to be produced due to which the same could not
be exhibited and now the plain ffs aFer finding these documents wanted to
exhibit the same.
Needless to say that defendant- respondent opposed the
applica on.
4. Learned trial Court dismissed the applica on by making the
following observa on:
"A er hearing the rival conten ons of both the par es, this Court is of the view
that present applica on should be dismissed for the reason therein that the
present applica on is for addi onal evidence/document on behalf of plain ff
availed. The plain ff availed 4 effec ve opportuni es since 14.07.2022 and that
despite availing several effec ve opportunity plain ff failed to get the said record
as evidence on record. Further, the applica on is silent for the ques on as to how
the instant record/addi onal evidence sought to be produced on record by way
of addi onal evidence is necessary for just and proper decision of the suit. Mere
making bald averments to this effect is of no use to the Ld. Counsel for plain ff at
this stage when the trial has reached its fag end and is fixed for rebu.al
evidence. The instant case has come to the stage of rebu.al evidence and that
three effec ve opportuni es have already elapsed on behalf of plain ff and that
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098308
now he seeks to get the relief vide adducing addi onal evidence. The plain ff at
this stage cannot be allowed fulfil lacuna le over by him by adducing addi onal
evidence. Further also merely by saying that the said record/documents could not
be produced as the same were misplaced in the house of plain ff is of no avail to
the plain ff has he cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same me"
5. As is evident from the aforesaid observa ons made by the trial
Court, effec ve opportuni es were availed by the pe oners- plain ffs to
produce the evidence. They did not even men on in the applica on (Annexure P-
3) as to how the documents, proposed to be produced in the addi onal evidence
will be helpful in effec vely deciding the issued involved in the case. The only
mo ve of the plain ffs- pe oners appears to delay the proceedings or to fill the
lacuna. It has already been observed by this court that a sale deed of 1973
executed by grandfather/father of the plain ffs is being challenged in 2021.
6. In all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find
any illegality in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
August 01, 2024
Nee ka Tuteja
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
