Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Singh And Others vs Mohan Singh on 1 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029423
CR-520-2024 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:029423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 CR-520-2024 (O&M)
Decided on: 01.03.2024
Sohan Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Mohan Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
RITU TAGORE, J. (Oral)
1. This revision is against the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur in a Civil Suit
No.50 of 2020 titled 'Mohan Singh Vs. Sohan Singh etc.' whereby the
application dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) filed by Sohan Singh-
petitioner (defendant No.1 before the trial Court) under Order 7 Rule 14 read
with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
'CPC') for leading additional evidence, has been dismissed.
2. Considering the limited prayer made in this revision, notice to
respondent is dispensed with.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent
(plaintiff before the trial Court), filed a suit for possession of property
identified with letters 'ABCD', and bounded with boundaries as outlined
and highlighted in red color in the site plan annexed and detailed in the head
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029423
CR-520-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:029423
note of the plaint (Annexure P-1), after removal of superstructure raised by
the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel contends that the parties involved in the suit
are brothers. The suit property is a house previously allotted to their father,
Kartar Singh, and subsequently to the petitioner, respondent (plaintiff) and
their other brothers Joginder Singh and Avtar Singh under allotment order
dated 12.02.1993 issued by Punjab Wakf Board. In prior litigation, the
petitioner, respondent and their other two brothers were declared to have
been in joint possession of the suit property. The respondent has also
admitted the same in the earlier litigation but now falsely claimed ownership
regarding the suit property in the present suit. The learned counsel submits
that the petitioners' dispute the accuracy of site plan filed by the respondent
in the present suit, alleging to be incorrect, and not reflective of actual and
factual position prevailing at the spot. The learned counsel further submits
the respondent's claim that petitioners have no concern with the suit
property is incorrect.
5. The counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner-
Sohan Singh had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with
Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-4), seeking permission to tender the
documentary evidence such as allotment letter in the name of the parties to
the suit and other brothers, receipt dated 19.02.1993, copy of lease deed and
receipt dated 19.02.1993 and copy of Khasra Girdawari, and also annexed
the aforesaid documents alongwith the application, pleading them to be
material evidence for just and complete decision of the case. The learned
counsel submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the
significance of the aforementioned documents and also failed to notice that
proposed evidence is certified copies of the record and was not disputed by
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029423
CR-520-2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:029423
the respondent in previous litigation. It is stated that learned trial Court
materially erred in dismissing the application. The learned counsel for the
petitioners reiterates that the proposed evidence is necessary to be placed on
record for the effective and complete adjudication of the controversy as the
proposed evidence makes it explicit that parties to the suit and other brothers
have equal interest in the suit property. A prayer is made to set aside the
order and permit presentation of proposed evidence. In support of his
arguments, learned counsel referred to the judgments of co-ordinate Bench
of this Court titled 'Manmohan Singh Vs. Davinder Kaur @ Mohinder
Kaur @ Gurminder Kaur and others' 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 661 and
'Dalbir and others Vs. Surajmal and others' 2011 SCC OnLine P&H
11166.
6. It is a matter of record that respondent-Mohan Singh filed a suit
for possession (Annexure P-1) regarding the suit property detailed with
letters ABCD and highlighted with red color as mentioned in the site plan,
asserting that all the brothers are residing in their separate houses. The
houses marked with letters ABCDEFGH, is exclusively owned by the
respondent, and the petitioners have no interest in it. Further, pleaded that in
the earlier litigation bearing suit No.17 dated 15.04.2011, the respondent
(plaintiff) was declared to be in exclusive possession of the property in
dispute, with the petitioners having no concern in the suit property. The
respondent also alleged that in month of April 2011 the petitioners along
with other, forcibly entered upon the suit property and raised illegal
construction as shown with letters ABCD in the site plan attached. On the
aforesaid material assertions, the respondent filed the suit for possession. In
their written statement, petitioners completely denied the averments of the
respondent and asserted that they have equal interest in the suit property.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029423
CR-520-2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:029423
They also disputed the correctness of the site plan relied by the respondent.
7. By way of the application (Annexure P-4), the petitioner-Sohan
Singh intended to place on record the documents indicating that both the
parties to the suit and other brothers hold equal interest in the suit property,
which was allotted to them vide allotment letter (Annexure P-6) and their
joint possession is reflected in khasra girdawari.
8. No doubt the provision of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC meant for
production of evidence no more exist on the statute books but the Courts
have not been rendered powerless to allow the reception of evidence when it
is required to assist in rendering justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India 2005 (3),
RCR (Civil) 530 observed that even after deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A
of the Code of Civil Procedure, additional evidence can be allowed under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure only.
9. In the given factual matrix, it appears that the documents in
question are essential for the proper adjudication of the case. This would
assist the Court in comprehensively and effectively deciding the matter
pending before it. The counsel for the petitioners admitted that petitioners
had applied for certified copies of the documents after the closure of their
evidence. In application (Annexure P-4), it is pleaded that the petitioners
obtained the certified copies of the documents in question after the closure
of their evidence. However, material evidence should not be disregarded on
hyper- technicalities and the delay can be atoned by imposing cost.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, to the considered opinion of
this Court, learned trial Court fell in error while dismissing the application of
the petitioners. Accordingly impugned order 06.01.2024 is set aside and
petitioners are given one opportunity to place on record the proposed
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029423
CR-520-2024 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:029423
evidence, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to be paid to the
respondent. The trial Court is directed to give one effective opportunity to
petitioners and permit them to lead the aforesaid evidence on their behalf.
11. The revision petition is allowed accordingly.
12. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
01.03.2024
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029423
5 of 5
