High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 8 8 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 123 CR-2685-2023(O&M) Date of decision: 28.04.2025 M/s The Panip anipat Woolen & General Mills Com Company Limited & Another Surinder Kum umar & Others Vs. ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- cate Mr.Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate ocate o 5. for respondents No.1 to 5 NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present Revision Petitio tition has been he filed by the defendant und under Article 227 of the Constitu ide stitution of India for setting aside the order date dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P4) pa nal passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Se (Senior Division), Panipat whereby 22 reby application dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P3 P3) filed by the petitioners for a en or additional evidence, has been dismissed. 2. It is submitted by learned ers rned counsel for the petitioners that the said a aid application of the petitioners co ed rs could not have been dismissed as the docum cuments sought to be produced by ary by the petitioners are necessary for proper adj adjudication of the matter. It is sub an s submitted that at the time of an SUNENA 2025.04.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) application fo for additional evidence, what is t Page 2 of 8 8 (cid:1) of t is to be seen is the relevancy of the document ents sought to be adduced as ev no s evidence. However, there is no finding of the the learned trial Court in the im he impugned order as regards the relevancy or or otherwise of the said docume he uments. It is submitted that the l procedural laws are la the handmaids o s of justice where cal technical considerations tions and substantial justice are er are pitted against each other whereupon th the latter should prevail, and te uld d technical considerations should take the back back seat. It is argued that the Co - e Courts should adopt a justice- oriented appr approach rather than a harsh, p cal h, pedantic and hyper-technical approach. Ult Ultimate purpose of the procedur of edural laws is the furtherance of cause of justic ustice and not to create obstacles f
Legal Reasoning
ed les for the parties. It is reiterated that every en y endeavour should be made to b ble to bring forth the best possible evidence for t for the proper and effective adjudi t is judication of the lis at hand. It is reiterated tha that the documents sought to be ers be produced by the petitioners were necessa essary for the proper adjudication re tion of the matter. It is therefore prayed that th ide. t the impugned order be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counse to unsel for the respondents No.1 to 5/plaintiffs ve s vehemently opposes the pray he prayer made on behalf of the petitioners an s and submits that the impugned o ity. ed order suffers from no infirmity. It is submitted itted that it has been correctly fou urt found by the learned trial Court that the said said documents were very muc he much in the knowledge of the petitioners an and in fact admitted to by the en the petitioners in their written SUNENA 2025.04.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) statement. As . As such, the petitioners cannot n Page 3 of 8 8 (cid:1) ce ot now be permitted to produce the said docu ocuments by way of additional e nt al evidence as it was incumbent upon the pet petitioners to exercise due dilige In iligence at the relevant time. In support of his f his contentions, learned counsel his sel relies upon judgments of this Court in “Kulji Kuljit Singh Vs. Gurmeet Singh” Law nd Law Finder Doc ID # 838868; and “Buta Singh V gh Vs. Gurmeet Singh” Law Finder D art er Doc ID # 262772, relevant part of which is as s as under:- “3...The factum of Jaswant Kaur as Kaur being of unsound mind was very much in the knowledge of t nal of the defendant and additional evidence can only be permitted w ed ted which could not be produced earlier when the party had an occ , if n occasion to produce the same, if the party seeking such permiss at rmission satisfied the Court that evidence could not be produced ce uced earlier despite due diligence and that the evidence sought to the ht to be produced was not in the knowledge of such party when to hen he had an opportunity to produce such evidence. Nothing en hing of the type has either been alleged or shown to the satisfac dy tisfaction of the Court as already noticed. All the facts were in the - the knowledge of the defendant- petitioner and there was nothing the hing to prevent him to produce the evidence on an earlier date. Thus, se hus, I am of the view that no case is made out for production of add der f additional evidence under Order 18, Rule 17A. In the circumstanc ils stances, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no
Decision
urt be no order as to costs. The Court shall now proceed with the matte ble atter as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the suit according t ing to law.” 4. It is also submitted that be hat the documents sought to be produced by t by the petitioners are irrelevant. It i us It is contended that the previous SUNENA 2025.04.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) suit was a coll collusive suit and decree has been Page 4 of 8 8 (cid:1) in een obtained by the Defendants in collusion with with the opposite party of said suit in suit, therefore are not relevant in present suit. Ld. counsel accordingly prays for for dismissal of the petition. 5. 6. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned couns d ounsel for the parties and perused the case file in ile in great detail. 7. I find no merit whatsoeve on ever in the submissions made on behalf of the he petitioners. 8. Brief facts of the case are t is are that the dispute in the suit is qua the street treet which the plaintiff and other p for her property owners are using for their ingress- -outgress; and upon which the Pe hip e Petitioner is claiming ownership on the strengt ength of revenue entries alleged to b to be false by the plaintiffs. 08.04.1999: Pl Plaintiffs purchased 9 Biswa land ha and out of land measuring 2 Bigha 17 Biswa com comprising in Khasra No. 772/1/1, 7 at /1, 772/2/1, 772/3/3/1 situated at Patti Insar vide vide registered sale deed bearing V 99. ing Vasika No. 234 dt. 08.04.1999. In the sale dee deed suit property is shown as a 'St a 'Street'. 21.04.2018 (A 8 (Annexure P-1): Plaintiff filed a ing d a suit for declaration seeking relief that the the suit property is part of parcel 3 rcel of street and Def. No. 1 to 3 (Petitioners al rs along with Proforma Respondent itle dent 6 herein) has no right or title in the same a e and entries in the revenue recor nd ecords are wrong, illegal, null and void and not not binding upon the rights of plai of plaintiff and other inhabitants of SUNENA 2025.04.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) vicinity, with a ith a further relief of mandatory in Page 5 of 8 8 (cid:1) nts ry injunction directing defendants to demolish th sh the wall raised by them. 26.10.2018 (A 8 (Annexure P-2): Petitioners filed t ed their Written Statement. 10.10.2022: After availing more than 26 op ce, opportunities to lead evidence, finally Defenda endants Counsel made statement an nt and closed the evidence. 08.12.2022 ( (Annexure P-3): Defendants/Pet for /Petitioners filed Application for adducing add additional evidence seeking to p en to place on record the Written Statement file t filed by defendant-Municipal C as l Corporation in case titled as "Panipat Woo oolen & General Mills Vs Vipin Ba 45 Bathal" bearing Case No. CS-245 of 2014 and Si Site plan along with Demarcation tion Report. 27.03.2023 ( (Annexure P-4): Vide the impugn ion ugned order, the said Application was dismissed ssed by the Ld. ACJ (SD), Panipat. 9. It has been contended he ed by the petitioners that the documents so s sought to be produced by them b ce em by way of additional evidence are very neces ecessary for the proper adjudicatio he ation of the matter. By way of the application da n dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P3), to P3), the petitioners had sought to bring on recor cord the written statement filed b on, led by the Municipal Corporation, Panipat/defen efendants No.4 and 5 in another sui pal r suit. However, the said Municipal Corporation, n, Panipat is already a party i as ty in the present Civil Suit as defendants No s No.4 and 5 and have filed their s As eir separate written statement. As such, the rele relevancy of the previous written aid itten statement filed by the said defendants in s in another suit is not made out rds out by the petitioners. As regards SUNENA 2025.04.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) the demarcati rcation report sought to be produce Page 6 of 8 8 (cid:1) ot duced by the petitioners, it is not denied that a t a Local Commissioner has alread he ready been appointed even in the present case f se for conducting fresh demarcation he ation in the present suit. Thus, the documents are s are not relevant and argument of t is t of the petitioners to this effect is rejected. 10. Moreover, it is not denied in ed that the petitioners were in knowledge of e of the documents now sought A ght to be produced by them. A perusal of Par Para 4 of the written statementda 2) dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure P2) filed by the p he petitioners in the present suit de suit shows that mention is made therein of the the written statement filed by the M at he Municipal Corporation, Panipat in the previou vious suit. Thus, documents were of ere well within the knowledge of Defendants at ts at time of filing written statement ed ent.Even in the application dated 08.12.2022 (A 2 (Annexure P3) filed by the peti nal petitioners for leading additional evidence, it h it has been stated that the said w be d written statement could not be brought on on record by the petitioners “ er, s “inadvertently”. Even further, sufficient opp opportunities - as many as 26 o by 6 opportunities were availed by Defendants to ts to lead evidence. The petitioners up ners cannot be allowed to fill up lacuna at final final stage of arguments. 11. Relevant findings of the he the learned trial Court in the impugned ord order are as follows:- “Basically, documents which defen on record today were well within the time of filing of written-stat been mentioned as to why said d ing defendants no.1 to 3 want to bring at ithin knowledge of defendants at statement itself. No ground has as on aid documents were not placed on SUNENA 2025.04.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) record while leading evidence by no.1 to 3 closed their evidence on learned counsel for defendants n than sufficient opportunities to co If the case file be seen, defend effective opportunities to conclude 26 opportunities are not suffici entire evidence on record in sup nothing cannot be sufficient for th end to the time taken by a party to Page 7 of 8 8 (cid:1) nts ce by the defendants. Defendants e on 10.10.2022 vide statement of of ore nts n.1 to 3. They had taken more to conclude their entire evidence. ce. efendants have availed total 26 26 as clude their evidence. If as many as ufficient for defendants to bring ing support of their pleadings, then en be for the defendants. There has to be rty to conclude his evidence.” 12. Furthermore, legal positio ar. sition in this regard is very clear. The Hon’ble S le Supreme Court in case of “Ajitsin of jitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat @ Ano Another” Law Finder Doc ID # 247 2478634, has held as under:- “9. At the outset, we may note th y a te that the law is well-settled by a catena of judgments rendered b to red by this Court that power to record additional evidence under uld der section 391 CrPC, 1973 should only be exercised when the par as party making such request was prevented from presenting the ev ue e evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that ch that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later s the ter stage during pendency of the appeal and that non-recording o to ing of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.” fa 13. The caveat enunciated in t to in the above pronouncement, to the effect that that the applicant was ‘prevented fr in ed from presenting the evidence in the trial despit espite due diligence being exercised to ised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer ca er came to light at a later stage du eal e during pendency of the appeal SUNENA 2025.04.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) ……’, do not a ot apply to the present case. Thu Page 8 of 8 8 (cid:1) ve Thus, keeping in view the above noted factual a ual and legal position, the present nt petition is dismissed. 14. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. 28.04.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.04.30 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)