Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishna Devi vs Deepak Aggarwal And Others on 20 March, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:039666
CR-1417-2024 (O&M) 1
128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1417-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on : 06.03.2024
Date of decision : 20.03.2024
Krishna Devi ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Deepak Aggarwal & Ors. ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vineet Kumar Jakhar, Advocate
for the caveator-respondent No.1.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure
P-5) vide which the third application filed for leading additional evidence
has been dismissed by the Trial Court.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
dated 10.02.2014. The written statement in the present case was filed on
19.10.2016. In the said written statement a reference was made to some
recorded conversation. Defendant No.1-petitioner availed 20 effective
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:039666
opportunities for leading her evidence and thereafter the counsel for
defendant No.1-petitioner closed her evidence on 02.09.2023. The pen drive
with the conversation now sought to be produced as additional evidence was
produced on the record as Ex.D3 by DW-1 on 18.04.2023 alongwith the
affidavit of examination-in-chief. Defendant No.1-petitioner (Krishna Devi)
and her husband Rakesh Aggarwal were not produced as witnesses. On
07.11.2023 an application was filed for additional evidence to summon Smt.
Raj Aggarwal and Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal, parents of plaintiff-respondent
No.1 as defendants' witnesses which application was dismissed by the Trial
Court vide order dated 13.12.2023. No revision was preferred against the
said order. A second application was filed for additional evidence on
20.12.2023 which was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated
08.01.2024. Thereafter the present application, which is the third
application, was filed for additional evidence. The Trial Court vide order
dated 09.02.2024 dismissed the said application with exemplary costs of
Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been
filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1-petitioner would
contend that the earlier counsel though had exhibited the pen drive as Ex.D3,
however, the witnesses were not produced and the counsel did not examine
Rakesh Aggarwal - father of plaintiff-respondent No.1 - in order to prove the
conversation of the father of the plaintiff-respondent No.1, namely, Rakesh
Aggarwal. It is further the contention that it is only after the counsel was
changed that the said fact came to the notice of defendant No.1-petitioner.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:039666
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the caveator-plaintiff-
respondent No.1 would contend that repeated applications have been filed
for leading additional evidence only to delay the matter. It is further the
contention that twenty effective opportunities were taken by defendant No.1-
petitioner to conclude her evidence and thereafter this is the third application
for additional evidence. The learned counsel would further contend that the
story being put forth that the earlier counsel did not summon the witnesses is
also unbelievable inasmuch as the earlier counsel is none other than the
daughter of defendant No.1-petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the present case twenty effective opportunities were granted
to defendant No.1-petitioner to lead her evidence. Thereafter an application
was filed for leading additional evidence which was dismissed vide order
dated 13.12.2023. No revision filed against the said order. Thereafter a
second application was filed which was allowed vide order dated
08.01.2024. This is the third application which has been filed. The ground
taken in the third application for wanting to lead additional evidence is that
defendant No.1-petitioner had collected all the concerned conversation in a
pen drive (Ex.D3) and had given it to her counsel. However, the previous
counsel exhibited the pen drive but did not prove the conversation as per law
and that this fact came to the knowledge of defendant No.1-petitioner when
she engaged another counsel. The Trial Court, while dismissing the
application, has observed that the previous counsel in the present case was
none other than the daughter of defendant No.1-petitioner and she is a
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:039666
lawyer with 15 years of standing and she had herself conducted the cross-
examination. It has also been noticed in the impugned order that the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 had pointed out that defendant No.1-petitioner is a
colonizer and involved in the sale and purchase of property. She has been
involved in the sale and purchase of about 400 properties and hence she was
not a simple lady and her daughter who has 15 years of standing has been
contesting all her cases. There are about 10-15 cases which are pending and
there are many other cases in which her son is a party. The present
application has been moved at the stage when the evidence was concluded
on 25.09.2023 and plaintiff-respondent No.1 closed his rebuttal evidence. It
has further been observed that defendant No.1-petitioner on one ground or
the other has not been addressing arguments. The learned counsel for
defendant No.1-petitioner has not been able to convince this Court that this
was a mere slip on the part of the counsel. The counsel for defendant No.1-
petitioner is none other than her daughter who is her lawyer in 10-15 other
cases. The written statement was filed on 19.10.2016 wherein there is a
mention of the recordings and it is hence not a case where the conversation
was not within the knowledge of defendant No.1-petitioner. Rather, the pen
drive was exhibited as Ex.D3. Defendant No.1-petitioner, as it appears, is
trying to delay the matter on one pretext or the other and hence no fault can
be found with the order passed by the Trial Court. No illegality or
irregularity is found with the impugned order. The Trial Court has already
imposed exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-. This Court, therefore, refrains from
imposing any further costs.
integrity of this order/judgment.
2024:PHHC:039666
7. In view of the above, the present revision petition being devoid
of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
8. It is made clear that any observation made herein shall not be
treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
20.03.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
At the time of pronouncement of this judgment, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the main civil suit i.e. CS-125-
2016 pending before the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Ganaur,
District Sonipat stands decreed with costs vide judgment and decree dated
19.03.2024 and hence the present revision petition has since been rendered
infructuous.
Since the judgment stands signed and pronounced, no alteration
in the matter is called for.
20.03.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment.
