Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manmohan Manocha vs Ravinderpal Singh And Anr on 25 October, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140729




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


122                                              CR-6259-2024 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision : 25.10.2024


 Manmohan Manocha                                                 ....Petitioner

                                        VERSUS

 Ravinderpal Singh and Another                                  ....Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN


Present :   Mr. Vikrant K. Vij, Advocate for the petitioner.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.10.2024 whereby the

application filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner for grant of permission to

lead additional evidence has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondent No.1 herein filed a suit on 16.07.2016 for recovery of

Rs.9,24,000/- (Rs.6,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.3,24,000/- as interest

thereupon) for the period July 2013 to June 2016. It was the case pleaded in

the plaint that the defendant No.1-petitioner herein had obtained an amount

of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent No.1 on 20.10.2004 to send

him to America. However, he failed to send the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to

America. Writing dated 16.12.2005 was also relied upon. Written statement

was filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner herein in the year 2017 raising

various preliminary objections. On merits the averments made in the plaint

were totally denied. When the matter was fixed for arguments, an application

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140729

was filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner for permission to lead additional

evidence wherein it was stated that at the time of leading evidence the

documents i.e. attested copy of the insurance policy and the photograph of the

shop were not tendered due to inadvertence and oversight. Reply was filed to

the said application and vide the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 the same

was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1-petitioner would

contend that the said evidence is necessary in order to show that the said shop

is not on the first floor and that it is in the basement. Learned counsel for the

defendant No.1-petitioner has relied upon judgments of this Court in the cases

of Devinder Singh & Ors. vs. Harbhajan Singh & Ors. [2012(72) RCR

(Civil) 322]; Sham Lal vs. Raj Kumar [2012(57) RCR (Civil) 210] and

Narinder Kumar vs. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust Committee

Hindu Panchayati Dharamshala & Anr. [2011(3) RCR (Civil) 87] to

contend that additional evidence can be permitted at the stage of rebuttal

evidence and arguments.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case the suit filed is for recovery. The defendant

No.1-petitioner herein filed his written statement in the year 2017. Thereafter,

both the parties led their evidence. In the application for permission to lead

additional evidence it has merely been stated that due to inadvertence certain

documents i.e. attested copy of the insurance policy and photographs of the

shop could not be tendered. The application is totally bereft of any reasoning

as to the relevance of the said documents which are sought to be led as

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140729

additional evidence. The argument of learned counsel for the defendant No.1-

petitioner that the said documents are necessary to show that the shop is in the

basement cannot be accepted inasmuch as if there was a dispute whether the

shop was on the first floor or in the basement the said evidence should have

been led by the defendant No.1-petitioner at the time of leading his evidence

and merely stating that the evidence has been left due to inadvertence and

hence the application for additional evidence should be permitted cannot be

accepted. The endeavour seems to be only to delay the proceedings as also to

fill in any lacuna, which may have occurred in the evidence led by the

defendant No.1-petitioner.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.K. Velusamy vs. N.

Palanisamy [2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875 (SC)] has held as under :

"16. We may add a word of caution. The power under

section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not

intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so

used, it will defeat the very purpose of various

amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the

application is found to be bona fide and where the

additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the

court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist

in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-

production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the

court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or

permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140729

that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The

court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other

party to compensate for the delay. Secondly the court

should take up and complete the case within a fixed time

schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly if the

application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to

cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with

heavy costs. If the application is allowed and the evidence

is permitted and ultimately the court finds that evidence

was not genuine or relevant and did not warrant the

reopening of the case recalling the witnesses, it can be

made a ground for awarding exemplary costs apart from

ordering prosecution if it involves fabrication of evidence.

If the party had an opportunity to produce such evidence

earlier but did not do so or if the evidence already led is

clear and unambiguous, or if it comes to the conclusion

that the object of the application is merely to protract the

proceedings, the court should reject the application. If the

evidence sought to be produced is an electronic record,

the court may also listen to the recording before granting

or rejecting the application."

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Bagai Construction vs.

M/s Gupta Building Material Store [2013(3) RCR (Civil) 304] has held as

under :

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140729

"11. The perusal of the materials placed by the plaintiff

which are intended to be marked as bills have already

been mentioned by the plaintiff in its statement of account

but the original bills have not been placed on record by

the plaintiff till the date of filing of such application. It is

further seen that during the entire trial, those documents

have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff but

for the reasons known to it, still the plaintiff has not placed

these bills on record. In such circumstance, as rightly

observed by the trial Court at this belated stage and that

too after the conclusion of the evidence and final

arguments and after reserving the matter for

pronouncement of judgment, we are of the view that the

plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill

the lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him. As

rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no acceptable

reason or cause which has been shown by the plaintiff as

to why these documents were not placed on record by the

plaintiff during the entire trial. Unfortunately, the High

Court taking note of the words "at any stage" occurring

in Order XVIII Rule 17 casually set aside the order of the

trial Court, allowed those applications and permitted the

plaintiff to place on record certain bills and also granted

permission to recall PW-1 to prove those bills. Though

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140729

power under Section 151 can be exercised if ends of justice

so warrant and to prevent abuse of process of the court

and Court can exercise its discretion to permit reopening

of evidence or recalling of witness for further

examination/cross-examination after evidence led by the

parties, in the light of the information as shown in the

order of the trial Court, namely, those documents were

very well available throughout the trial, we are of the view

that even by exercise of Section 151 of Civil Procedure

Code, the plaintiff cannot be permitted.

12. After change of various provisions by way of

amendment in the Civil Procedure Code, it is desirable

that the recording of evidence should be continuous and

followed by arguments and decision thereon within a

reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that

courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time

schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of

amending several provisions in the Code would get

defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments,

reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as

far as possible avoided and only in compelling and

acceptable reasons, those applications are to be

considered. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed

those two applications before the trial Court in order to

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140729

overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and

evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not

given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed

show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after

more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to

prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents

have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still

plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further

shows that final arguments were heard on number of times

and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order

to improve its case, the plaintiff came forward with such

an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such

course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151

Civil Procedure Code."