21.02.2025 BPS Mahila Vi la Vishwavidyalya & Others v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
Page 1 of 4 4 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 Promila CR-1147-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.02.2025 BPS Mahila Vi la Vishwavidyalya & Others Vs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) Present:- ate Mr. Adit Singal, Advocate cate Ms. Swati Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** The present revision peti petition has been filed by the petitioner/pla
Legal Reasoning
/plaintiff under Article 227 of the he Constitution of India seeking setting aside o ide of impugned order dated 01.02 1.02.2025 (Annexure P8) passed by the ld. Civi Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gohan hana, District Sonepat, whereby the application ation of the petitioner filed under S er Section 151 CPC for adducing additional evid evidence, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the p he petitioner inter alia submits that the learn arned trial Court is in patent error rror in dismissing the application of the petition titioner for additional evidence as as the said additional evidence has material b ial bearing on the issues at hand; an d; and is therefore, necessary for the proper ad r adjudication of the matter. It is su is submitted that gross injustice will be caused sed to the petitioner in case the sa e said application is not allowed. Ld. Counsel also refers to the the document ent dated 24.1.2013 (Annexure P10) which is h is the Attendance Sheet of the f the interview in question, to SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) contend that a hat a perusal thereof would reveal t eal that there was ‘hanky-panky’ in the selectio
Legal Reasoning
ction in question. It is contended th ed that the petitioner has clearly Page 2 of 4 4 (cid:1) stated in her her application (Annexure P-5), th that this record came to her knowledge on e only recently when it was found in d in the file of Civil Writ Petition No.6417 of 20 f 2013. It is reiterated that the said said information is necessary for the just and p d proper decision of the case and w nd would be of great help to the learned trial rial Court for adjudicating the he controversy at hand. It is accordingly pr ly prayed that the impugned order b er be set aside. 3. 4. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned cou counsel for the petitioner and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 5. Brief facts of the case a e are that on 26.02.2018, the petitioner had had filed a suit (Annexure P1) see ) seeking a declaration that the selection of de of defendants No.4 to 8 by defenda ndants No.1 to 3 on the post of Hostel Warden rden made on 24.01.2013 as well a ell as selection list and interview result to be w e wrong, illegal, null and void and and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff; and a further a decree of manda andatory injunction be passed in favour of the p the plaintiff and against the defenda endants directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to ap to appoint the plaintiff on the said p id post. 6. In the said Civil Suit, the wr e written statement was filed by the defendan dants on 04.08.2018 and 01.10.2 10.2018 (Annexures P2 to P4). Issues were fr re framed in the matter on 14.01.20 1.2019 and case was adjourned for plaintiff e iff evidence to 25.04.2019. From om 14.01.2019 till 08.12.2023, SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) several effecti fective opportunities were granted t ted to the petitioner to conclude evidence. Sub Subsequently, on 08.12.2023, evid evidence of the petitioner was closed. Almos lmost 1 year thereafter, the petit etitioner has filed the present Page 3 of 4 4 (cid:1) application on n on 23.09.2024 (Annexure P5) for for leading additional evidence. Reply thereto reto was filed by the defendants ants on 09.10.2024 (Annexures P6and P7). Vi Vide the impugned order dated ted 01.02.2025, the above said application of n of the petitioner has been dismiss issed. 7. From the above facts, it is clear that more than sufficient opp opportunity was afforded to the the petitioner for leading and concluding he g her evidence. However, this was was not done. As such, it would appear that t at the present application has b s been filed by the petitioner merely to dela delay the proceedings in the suit. 8. Furthermore, learned co counsel for the petitioner has referred to th o the Attendance Sheet dated 24.1 24.1.2013 (Annexure P10) of the interview for t for the post of Hospital Warden in in which 5 candidates borne at Serial nos. 11, . 11, 20, 23, 34, and 39 have been een marked absent. It has been argued that d at despite being absent in the int interview, the said candidates have still been been granted marks in the said int interview. It is contended that this would sh d show that “..there is hanky-pan panky in the entire selection process…”. I fi I find no merit in the above said c aid contention of the petitioner. The selection tion of the said candidates borne ne at Serial nos. 11, 20, 23, 34, and 39 of the the Attendance Sheet/ Annexure P re P10, is not the subject matter of challenge b ge before the Civil Court. The said said ‘absent’ candidates are not SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) the defendan dants in the present Civil Suit o uit of the petitioner. As such, Page 4 of 4 4 (cid:1) allegation of of the petitioner is not only vagu vague and unsubstantiated, but appears to be o be irrelevant to the issue at han hand. Even otherwise, the said Attendance S e Sheet is dated 24.01.2013; whe whereas present Civil Suit has been filed by by the petitioner on 26.02.2018 18. Thus, said information was available to t to the petitioner since the year 2 ar 2013. It has however, been contended by by the petitioner that the said said information came to her knowledge on only recently while going throug rough file of CWP no. 6417 of 2013. Even the n the said contention of the petition titioner is liable to be rejected as the said CWP WP No. 6417 of 2013 was finally di
Decision
ly disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7 ed 7.2.2018 (Annexure P-9). Clearly arly, the petitioner has failed to exercise due d ue diligence. Moreover, as already ady noted above, the petitioner has sought t opportunities from 14.01.2019 19 till 08.12.2023 to conclude evidence. Thu Thus, no ground is made out to t to interfere in the impugned order. 9. 10. 21.02.2025 Sunena In view of the above, prese resent petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether spea Whether repo peaking/reasoned: eportable: Yes/No Yes/No SUNENA 2025.02.25 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)