Narinder Kaur v. Kamir Singh And Others

Sr. No.120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16th July 2025 NARINDER KAUR ........Petitioner versus KAMIR SINGH AND OTHERS .......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN

Present:

Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner-defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-13), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, whereby, the application (Annexure P-8), filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, seeking permission to lead additional evidence, was allowed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is being contested by the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner had closed the evidence by making a statement dated 14.11.2023 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant has also closed the evidence on 23.08.2024. It is contended that during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent-plaintiff moved an application dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-5), seeking permission to place on record the copies of the lists of recognized board as well as fake boards. However, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for respondent No.2 (plaintiff No.2). Though, at the time of making

 the said statement, the counsel had submitted that he would file a fresh application seeking permission to lead additional evidence along with certified copies but no such opportunity to file a fresh application was granted to the respondent-plaintiff.

2.1 It is further contended that despite that, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla has allowed the subsequent application filed by the respondent-plaintiff by passing the impugned order and permission has been granted to the respondent-plaintiff to lead additional evidence. The respondent-plaintiff has been allowed to prove FIR No.78 dated 17.02.2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Indira Nagar, District Lucknow (Annexure P-9), FIR No.123 dated 09.05.2023, under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Ratia, District Fatehabad (Annexure P-10) and copies of certificates issued by the Haryana Board of School Education, obtained under the RTI (Annexure P-11). It is further contended that the permission to lead additional evidence by way of proving the said documents would reopen the matter afresh and it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. 3.

I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the paper book.

4.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the matter, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with to avoid further delay in the proceedings before the trial Court.

5.

As per the application moved by the respondent-plaintiff, seeking permission to lead additional evidence (Annexure P-5), it was alleged that the petitioner-defendant has tendered a certificate issued by the Uttar Pradesh State Open Board and same is alleged to be fake. It is further

 contended that the respondent-plainitff had searched the list of recognized and fake institutes from Google and other websites and he intends to place on record the said documents including the list of fake Boards. 6.

Since the respondent-plaintiff had challenged the election of the petitioner-defendant as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and it has been alleged that the respondent-plaintiff has relied upon the fake documents i.e. educational certificates, in such circumstances, permitting the respondentplaintiff to lead the proposed evidence is for the purpose of elucidating the controversy inter se the parties.

7.

In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court sees no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 27.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla (Annexure P-13), permitting the respondent-plaintiff to lead additional evidence. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as he is going to get an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal.

8.

Consequently, the present petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.

9.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) JUDGE 16th July 2025 simran Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No