Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkhan Singh vs Chandan Through His Lrs on 18 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038472
2024:PHHC:038472
CR-278-2024 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
130 CR-278-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.03.2024.
Malkhan Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
Chandan through his LRs ....Respondents.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
By way of present revision petition, the petitioners have
challenged order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P-8), vide which learned trial
Court has adjourned the matter for arguments on application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC as well as on merits of appeal. Further, the petitioner seeks
direction to learned trial Court to first decide the abovesaid application
before adjudicating the main appeal on merits.
2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present
revision petition are that the suit filed by the petitioner for specific
performance of the agreement dated 09.05.2008, was dismissed by the trial
Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017. The petitioner preferred
an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court and also
moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before the Appellate
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038472
2024:PHHC:038472
CR-278-2024 (O&M) - 2-
Court. The said application was taken on record vide order dated
14.02.2022 and the case was adjourned for filing reply to the said
application. Thereafter, reply to the said application was filed and then the
case was fixed for arguments. On 17.08.2022, the arguments on the
application for additional evidence were not advanced. Then on 21.10.2023,
the case was fixed for arguments on the application as well as on merits of
the appeal and again vide order dated 04.01.2024, the case was fixed for
arguments on the application as well as on merits of the appeal.
3. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision petition
has been filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
adjudication of the application for additional evidence is first required and
in case the application is allowed then the petitioner would be granted the
opportunity to lead the evidence. Even if the said application is not allowed,
the right of the petitioner to challenge the said order independently would
be frustrated. He has submitted that the trial Court may be directed to firstly
decide the application for additional evidence before proceeding further
with hearing of arguments in the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the relevant record.
6. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Appellate
Court has adjourned the case for arguments on the application as well as on
merits of appeal.
7. The main appeal is fixed for the arguments before the appellate
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038472
2024:PHHC:038472
CR-278-2024 (O&M) - 3-
Court. As the application for additional evidence is to be taken alongwith
the main appeal, so it is not likely to delay the disposal of the application for
adducing of the additional evidence filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Moreover, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner if the merits
of the said application are considered and appreciated at the time of hearing
the arguments in the main appeal. If the Appellate Court would deem it
proper while considering the merits of the aforesaid application then it
could be allowed and accordingly the opportunity might be granted to the
petitioner for leading of the additional evidence. So the right of the
petitioner is not likely to be curtailed in any manner.
8. Thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order no interference therewith is called for while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction. The present revision petition being bereft of any merits stands
dismissed.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
18.03.2024.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
3 of 3
