High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/8695/2015dismissed

Mohinder Kumar v. Niranjan Kumar & ORS.

2017-07-31Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CR-8695-2015 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CR-8695-2015 Date of Decision:- 31.07.2017 Mohinder Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

Niranjan Kumar and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gulshan Nandwani, Advocate for the respondents.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Petitioner-defendant has come up in revision against the order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned trial Court, whereby application made by the respondents-plaintiffs to lead additional evidence has been allowed.

Perusal of the above-said order (Annexure P-3) shows that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of `1,36,000/- against the defendant. As per the plaintiffs, the matter was settled between them at PP Gokalgate whereby defendant agreed to make the payment of `1,36,000/- in writing. On the other hand, defendant has denied the settlement and his signatures. Now, at this stage of rebuttal, the plaintiffs Naresh Kumar 2017.09.04 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CR-8695-2015 -2intends to lead the additional evidence by getting the original signatures of the defendant in the income tax return dated 12.07.2011 and application under Section 151 CPC for the said purpose has been allowed in order to ascertain the true facts and to adjudicate the matter effectively. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rewari, has rightly passed the impugned order after appreciating the evidence in the correct prospective. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed.

( RITU BAHRI ) July 31, 2017 JUDGE naresh.k Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2017.09.04 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh