Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sarabjit Singh vs Karamjit Singh Grewal And Others on 7 May, 2024

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063994




CR-2795-2024 (O&M)              -1-

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

133                                    CR-2795-2024 (O&M)
                                       Date of decision:07.05.2024

Sarabjit Singh                                              ... Petitioner

                                Vs.

Karamjit Singh Grewal & others                              ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.

Present:     Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
             Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate,
             Mr. Mayank Vashishth, Advocate and
             Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

                          ...

SUKHVINDER KAUR, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.04.2024

(Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana, whereby

application filed by the petitioner for additional evidence has been

dismissed.

2. The relevant facts for adjudicating the present lis are that the

plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff

along with defendants are the owners in possession of the properties as

detailed in the head note of the plaint on the basis of natural inheritance and

for declaration that mutation No.7170 dated 20.05.2013, Mutation No.3594

dated 18.07.2013 and mutation No.3597 dated 11.07.2013 regarding the land

situated in village Gajianna, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga on the

basis of alleged Will dated 16.04.2010 are illegal, null and void with

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063994

CR-2795-2024 (O&M) -2-

consequential relief of joint possession and permanent injunction regarding

alienation was also sought.

3. Said suit was contested by defendant No.1/revision petitioner ,

who filed the written statement alleging that father of plaintiff as well as

defendant No.1 Rajwant Singh had transferred 82 kanals 9 marlas of land

situated in Village Kamaspur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala in favour of

plaintiff through consent decree dated 30.10.1985. It was also alleged that

his father had also executed registered Will dated 16.04.2010 bequeathing

his entire estate in favour of defendant No.1/petitioner, which was duly

registered with the Sub Registrar, Patiala vide Wasika No.51 Bahi No.3 for

the services rendered by him to his father.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed.

Thereafter, the parties led the evidence in support of their case.

5. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of

plaintiff/respondent No.1 then on 13.03.2024, defendant No.1/petitioner

filed an application for additional evidence stating that due to inadvertence,

the scribe of the Will and Record Keeper of the office of the Sub Registrar,

Patiala were not produced, though the certified copy of the Will had been

duly proved. Reply to such application was filed by plaintiff/respondent

No.1 and it was opposed by alleging that it had been filed just to delay the

proceedings of the case and defendant No.1/petitioner had already been

provided ample opportunity for leading his evidence.

6. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 was passed by

the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, while dismissing the aforesaid

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063994

CR-2795-2024 (O&M) -3-

application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 by holding that there was

no provision under CPC for allowing additional evidence and also stating

that due opportunities had already been granted to defendant No.1 for

concluding his evidence. Aggrieved against the said order, the revision

petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing the present

revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even

though there is no provision in CPC for allowing the additional evidence but

in case the evidence is essential for just and proper decision of the matter,

the same can be allowed at any stage. While relying upon Gurbaj Singh Vs.

Shameer Singh & others, 2017 (1) PLR 632 and Manmohan Singh Vs.

Davinder Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur @ Gurminder Kaur & others, 2015

(5) RCR (Civil) 661, he has contended that there is no bar qua leading of the

additional evidence at any stage, even if the stage is of conclusion of the

arguments.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and

have gone through the record.

9. In the instant case, the defendant wants to produce in additional

evidence the scribe of Will dated 16.04.2010 and Record Keeper of the

office of the Sub Registrar, Patiala along with Will Wasika No.51 Bahi No.3

dated 16.04.2010. In Gurbaj Singh's case (supra), it has been held that

"There can be no hard and fast rule that the additional evidence cannot be

permitted in any eventuality after the closing of the evidence by the

defendant and at the stage of rebuttal evidence. If the additional evidence

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063994

CR-2795-2024 (O&M) -4-

sought to be adduced is essential for the just decision of the case, said

additional evidence can be permitted by exercising the powers under Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, at any stage of the suit." In other

plethora of judgments also, it has been held that in case the evidence is

essential for just and proper decision of the matter, the same can be allowed

at any stage. In Raju Sharma Vs. Pardeep Kumar, 1999 (1) PLR 612, it

has been held by this Court that "Once last opportunity is granted, the

concerned party is under obligation to produce its entire evidence on the

subsequent date but wherever the interest of justice demands the production

of material evidence for effective determination of the subject matter of the

suit, the grant of another opportunity would meet the ends of the justice."

The Apex Court had held in K.K. Valusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 AIR

SC (Civil) 1000, that "The amended provisions of the Code contemplate

and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the

completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment. Therefore, it was

unnecessary to have an express provision for re-opening the evidence to

examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination.

But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of

the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party

comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands earlier, or

some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes

into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section

151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and

necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063994

CR-2795-2024 (O&M) -5-

deem fit to impose. "

10. In the instant case also, the proposed additional evidence to be

adduced by the plaintiff is essential for effectively adjudicating the matter in

controversy. Otherwise also, the production of the said additional evidence

will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff as he will also get the

opportunity to rebut the additional evidence so adduced by the petitioner.

11. So, it will be appropriate if one effective opportunity is given to

the petitioner to adduce the additional evidence. The other party can be well

compensated with the costs.

12. Keeping in view the above, one effective opportunity is granted

to the petitioner to adduce his entire additional evidence at his own

responsibility, subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the

respondents.