Chhote Lal v. Birender Singh & ORS

Civil Revision No.26 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.26 of 2016 Date of Decision:- 07.01.2016 Choote Lal ......Petitioner

Versus

Birender Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** SHEKHER DHAWAN, J Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 23.12.2015 whereby application for additional evidence of defendant/petitioner to place on record the sale deed dated 21.05.1968 was dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sale deed dated 21.05.1968 bearing No.95 is the most relevant document for the purpose of decision of main controversy and the said evidence could not be adduced when opportunity was given to defendant to lead the evidence. Otherwise, the said document is 47 years old registered document, which is a public document and coming from proper custody which is perse admissible and the same was declined to be produced by way of additional evidence. The said order be set aside and applicant-defendant be allowed to

Civil Revision No.26 of 2016 -2prove the same by leading additional evidence. 3.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that learned trial Judge has already considered these facts while passing the order dated 23.12.2015 that applicant failed to show any relevancy of the document to be produced on record. The only ground taken in the application is that the document is 40 years old and registered document. Learned trial Judge while appreciating the controversy that this fact itself does not make out a case for additional evidence. Applicant-defendant was given more than reasonable opportunities to lead evidence. The additional evidence as per provisions of Order 18 of CPC deals with cases where the Court feels that at any stage of decision any witness is to be recalled, the said witness can be recalled. The next requirement is that the document must be relevant for just decision of the case and the Court should form the opinion that the same is required for just decision of the case.

4.

In the case in hand, learned trial Judge has rightly held that applicant has not been able to make out a case that despite due diligence applicant could not lead the evidence which the party now wishes to produce by way of additional evidence. This Court has also considered the nature of the document and rightly observed that the same was not required for the just decision of the case rather the case can be decided on the basis of evidence already available on the file.

5.

Allowing additional evidence is not a matter of routine procedure and otherwise also as per amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Order 18 Rule 17(A) CPC have been deleted though this Court has got the power to allow any evidence at any stage but party has to make

Civil Revision No.26 of 2016 -3out a case calling for exercise of that legal discretion to establish that the evidence is essential for the just decision of the case and party could not lead the said evidence despite due diligence when the party was given due opportunity for the purpose. But that is not the case before the Court. Court below has rightly exercised the discretion lawfully vested in it, as per Code of Civil Procedure. The present petition is without any merit and same stands dismissed.

( SHEKHER DHAWAN ) January 07, 2015 JUDGE naresh.k