Dhani Ram v. Arjun Singh

Civil Revision No.3534 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3534 of 2015 Date of decision: 17.09.2015 Dhani Ram

...Petitioner

Versus

Arjun Singh ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh

Present:

Ms.Vandana Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the respondent

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral) Impugned in the present revision is the order dated 14.5.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, vide which, application of the plaintiff for additional evidence to prove certain un-exhibited photographs was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also minutely examined the impugned order.

By way of additional evidence, plaintiff wants to prove certain photographs. The photographs can be proved only by examining the photographer. The Lower Court has observed that the photographs are not so essential so as to go to the root of the GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.09.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Civil Revision No.3534 of 2015 case. Plaintiff revisionist was given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence. Exercise of due diligence had not been proved by the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer was declined. Case is now stated to be fixed for arguments. I do not see any reason to differ with the view taken by the lower Court.

The revision is dismissed.

17.09.2015 (Kuldip Singh) gk Judge GOPAL KRISHAN 2015.09.21 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh