Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar And Another vs Sat Parkash And Others on 6 May, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
137 CR-2769-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 06.05.2024
VIJAY KUMAR & ANR. .... Petitioners
VERSUS
SAT PARKASH & ORS. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure
P-10) whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for leading
additional evidence was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners would contend that
the plaintiff-petitioners want to lead additional evidence by producing
Manjit Singh who is one of the attesting witnesses. It is further the
contention of the learned counsel that there are two witnesses to the
agreement to sell i.e. Tilak Raj and Manjit Singh. Tilak Raj was won over by
the defendant-respondents and he appeared as a witness of the defendant-
respondents denying the execution of the agreement to sell. Hence, it is now
imperative to produce Manjit Singh to prove the agreement to sell. Learned
counsel would further contend that in the year 2018 diet money and process
fee was deposited for summoning the said witness, Manjit Singh.
integrity of this judgment/order.
137 CR-2769-2024 (O&M) -2-
3. Heard.
4. In the present case the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioners was
closed vide order dated 15.03.2022 after having been afforded 15 effective
opportunities. Subsequently, at the time of the rebuttal arguments, an
application (Annexure P-8) was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for leading
additional evidence. A perusal of the said application reveals that it is totally
bereft of any details as to why the additional evidence is sought to be lead.
Rather, it does not even state as to the nature of the evidence which the
plaintiff-petitioners seek to lead though along with the application a list of
witnesses has been produced. It simply states that additional evidence in the
present case is required to prove his case. The application itself does not
state as to why the said witness could not be examined earlier. The suit is for
specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure P-1).
It was incumbent on the plaintiff-petitioners to prove the said agreement to
sell by way of cogent evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff-petitioners
that they were not aware of the whereabouts of the said witness and that it
was only at a later stage that the whereabouts came to their knowledge.
Infact, no reason is forthcoming either from the application or otherwise as
to why the said witness could not be examined at an earlier stage. The
argument of the learned counsel that the diet money and process fee was
deposited in the year 2018 would be of no avail as the evidence of the
integrity of this judgment/order.
137 CR-2769-2024 (O&M) -3-
plaintiff-petitioners, after having been afforded numerous effective
opportunities, was closed on 15.03.2022. The said order was never
challenged by the plaintiff-petitioners. Hence, no fault can be found with the
order passed by the Trial Court.
5. The present petition, which is wholly devoid of any merit, is
accordingly dismissed. Any observation made herein shall not be treated as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed off.
06.05.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this judgment/order.
