Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh And Anr vs Jaswinder Singh And Anr on 28 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043037
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA RYANA AT CHANDIGARH
111 CR-4416-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 28.03.2025
Gurmeet Singh and Another ....Petitioners
VERSUS
Jaswinder Singh and Another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms. Aashna Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2.
(through hybrid mode).
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging order dated 02.05.2018 whereby
application filed by defendant-petitioners herein to de-exhibit the documents
(Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9) has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend
that in the present case the suit is for mandatory injunction to the effect that
the defendant-petitioners be directed to remove the illegal construction as
well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from
encroaching upon the street in question. Learned counsel for the defendant-
petitioners would further contend that Issue No.1 as framed by the Trial
Cout was "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory
injunction as prayed for ? OPP". Since the onus was on the plaintiff-
respondent No.1, the evidence was to be led in affirmative. It is further the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043037
contention that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 only tendered photocopies of
the documents during his evidence, which was objected to by the defendant-
petitioners and Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 were tendered in evidence at the time of
rebuttal. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that
the said evidence could not have been accepted in evidence at the stage of
rebuttal as this was the evidence which was to be led in affirmative. In
support of his arguments, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has
relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Hanumant Singh vs.
Babu Singh & Ors. [2010 (44) RCR (Civil) 777], Nazar Singh vs. Kulbir
Kaur & Ors. [2019(1) RCR (Civil) 374], Dinesh Kumar vs. State of
Haryana [2002(4) RCR (Civil) 366], Gurnam Singh alias Urjan Singh
vs. Jit Singh & Ors. [1998(2) RCR (Civil) 392] and Surjit Singh vs.
Jagtar Singh [2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537].
3. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1
would contend that Ex.P-8 was already on the record and certified copy was
tendered in evidence at the time of rebuttal. It is further the contention that
Ex.P-9 was also tendered. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1
would further contend that the said documents were tendered in the presence
of the counsel for defendant-petitioners and no objection was raised by the
counsel. It has further been pointed out that the Trial Court while dealing
with the application has left it open for the Court to comment at the stage of
arguments and final decision of the case regarding the documents so
tendered.
4. Heard.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043037
5. In the present case, while leading his evidence in affirmative
the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has tendered Ex.P-2 stating it to be a certified
copy of order dated 29.06.1977, however, the same was only a photocopy
which was objected to by the counsel for the defendant-petitioners. At the
time of rebuttal evidence, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 tendered certified
copy of order dated 29.06.1977 and exhibited the same as Ex.P-8 and also
tendered Jamabandi for the year 2011-12 as Ex.P-9, which was tendered on
19.03.2018. Copy of the order has been appended with the application being
CM-641-CII-2020 as Annexure R-1/4. A perusal of the said order reveals
that the document was tendered in the presence of the counsel for the parties
and no objection was raised by counsel for the defendant-petitioners when
the said document was tendered. There can be no quarrel with the
proposition of law laid down in the cases of Hanumant Singh (supra),
Nazar Singh (supra), Dinesh Kumar (supra), Gurnam Singh alias Urjan
Singh (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra). It is trite that no evidence can be led
in rebuttal on an issue onus of which is on the party. However, keeping in
view the peculiar circumstances of the case, where the documents were
tendered by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in the presence of the counsel for
the defendant-petitioners, who did not raise any objection and had an
objection been raised at the relevant point of time the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 would have filed an appropriate application for tendering the said
documents in evidence in accordance with law.
6. In view of the above, the application filed by the defendant-
petitioners is allowed to the extent that Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 would not be
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:043037
considered as evidence led by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and are
accordingly struck off. However, plaintiff-respondent No.1 would always be
at liberty to file an appropriate application for leading evidence in
accordance with the law. In case any such application is filed, the same shall
be dealt with by the Trial Court in accordance with the law. It is made clear
that any observation made herein shall not be considered as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
7. Disposed off in the above terms. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
28.03.2025 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
4 of 4
