High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 upta Mannu Gupta Priyanka CR-2711-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 05.05.2025 Vs. ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advo for the petitioner. dvocate NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** Present petition under Art of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed se ed seeking setting aside of order da 5) r dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P5) whereby appl application for leading additional e nt al evidence based on subsequent development b
Legal Reasoning
ent between the parties, has been w en wrongly dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the he the petitioner submits that the petitioner had had filed the present application da 3) n dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P3) seeking permi ermission to produce additional evi er l evidence whereby the petitioner wanted to su summon and examine witness a ial ss and tender on record crucial documents to s to assist the Court to deal more e at ore effectually with the dispute at hand. It is sub submitted that the said applicatio en cation of the petitioner has been wrongly dism ismissed as the submission of t as of the above-said evidence was material and e nd essential for the proper adjudica he dication of the matter and for the effective pron ronouncement of judgment. Moreo ve oreover, no prejudice would have SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) been caused t ed to the respondent by leading o Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) lso ng of the said evidence. It is also submitted tha that despite due diligence, the ve the petitioner could not have produced the the above-said witness along with he ith above-said documents as the said witness w ss was out of State and beyond th t is d the reach of the petitioner. 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 nd counsel for the petitioner and perused the ca e case file in great detail. 5. The brief facts of the case as case are that the petitioner was married to the o the respondent on 21.01.2015. O eir . One son was born out of their wedlock on 0 n 09.01.2017, who is in the care he are and custody of the wife. The petitioner had had filed a petition under Section ct tion 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of d of divorce (Annexure P1) in 2019 ad 19 to which the respondent had filed reply date dated 30.10.2020 (Annexure P2). 6. During pendency of the sa led e said petition, the petitioner filed the present ap nt application dated 03.03.2025 (An he (Annexure P3) for producing the following addi additional evidence: - “a. Sangeeta W/o Karambir (Reco ar (Recorder) R/o 15-A, Uttam Nagar Delhi (shadow name Neha Arora ive rora), who got prepared the live picture of Audio and video of Priy at Priyanka at her parental house at Bhiwani that recording of picture ing icture and conversation regarding respondent's tuition and trainin her aining work and residing in her parental house at Bhiwani is in as is intact, exact in all respect as recorded by Sangeeta alongwith GB with its pen drive NEOGT0118GB SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (green teck) which contain record Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) nd cording of abovestated audio and video and detail transcripts en ipts of conversation between respondent (Priyanka and record ot ecorded Sangeeta which was got recorded in the month of January uary 2023). b. DVD-R 120 min/4.7 GB. 16X ich 16X WRITEX Company, in which containing mobile conversation - tion between Mannu (M- 92554- 83135) and Priyanka (M-72 72069-47018) regarding the the independent mutual settlement on, ent for permanently separation, alongwith transcripts of conversat ersation the parties. c. 100% Disability certificate dat ani dated 10.12.2008 of Nisha Rani elder sister of Manu d. Certified copy of statement of S 25 t of Sandeep Singla in case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. titled as Priyanka VS M t, S Manu Gupta at Family Court, Bhiwani. e. Certified copy of respondent Pr .C. nt Priyanka in case u/s 125 Cr. P.C. titled as Priyanka VS Manu Gupta upta at Family Court, Bhiwani.” 7. As for the record, the said ith said evidence was available with the petitioner oner. Yet, he had failed to produ of oduce the same at the time of concluding hi g his evidence on 18.12.2024. It he It has been contended by the petitioner tha that despite due diligence, he c he e could not have produced the above-said ev d evidence. However, the said co is contention of the petitioner is utterly falsifie sified from the record as it has bee er been admitted by the petitioner himself in the the written transcript of the video s , eo sought to be produced by him, that the said v aid video was available with him sinc dio since January 2023 and the audio recording was was available with him since 06.1 he 06.11.2022. Further, some of the SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) evidence soug sought to be produced by the petiti Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) ce itioner was part of the evidence tendered by th by the respondent in the proceeding As dings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As such, it is clea clear that the petitioner was in th ce in the knowledge of the evidence now sought to ht to be led by him by way of additio ditional evidence. 8. It has also come on rec ad record that the petitioner had availed as ma many as 12 opportunities to produ 24, roduce his evidence i.e. 2.8.2024, 14.8.2024, 2 , 2.9.2024, 17.9.2024, 4.10.202 24, .2024, 18.10.2024, 29.10.2024, 13.11.2024, 29 4, 29.11.2024, 4.12.2024, and finall on inally, closed his oral evidence on 18.12.2024; w 4; whereafter matter was fixed fo ary d for tendering of documentary evidence by t by the petitioner for 23.12.2024. O er 4. On 23.12.2024, the petitioner tendered doc documents (Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and M his d Mark PA) and completed his affirmative ev e evidence. Thereafter, the petition i.e. itioner availed 5 opportunities i.e. 07.02.2025, 1 5, 10.02.2025, 18.02.2025, 21.0 to 21.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 to produce his re is rebuttal evidence. But despite the ow the fact that the documents now sought to be p be produced at the time of rebutta he uttal and arguments, were in the possession of of the petitioner, the same were w nt re withheld without any apparent reason. It wou would, therefore, appear that the lay the same was done only to delay the trial. It has been admitted by the pet aid petitioner himself that the said documents w s were not produced due to inad me advertence. However, the same constitutes no s no ground for permitting additio of ditional evidence at the stage of rebuttal and a nd arguments. 9. The relevant findings of the f the Family Court are as follows:- SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) “5. The petitioner has filed th Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) nal d this application for additional evidence with averment that af ot at after due diligence could not produce earlier the above said w ve aid witness along with its above said documents as the same w nd e witness was out of state and beyond the reach of the petitione ot itioner, so the petitioner could not trace out the whereabouts of the As f the above said witness earlier. As per averment in the application, are tion, the above said evidence are material, essential for the just en just decision of this case. When evidence was within the knowle ing owledge at the time of leading evidence in affirmative and add ict additional evidence to contradict the evidence of the defendant ch ant cannot be allowed in such circumstances. By application f the on for additional evidence, the petitioner cannot be allowed t the ed to fill in lacuna left in the evidence. Merely by stating th be g that evidence sought to be produced, has been left due to for to inadvertence, application for additional evidence can not be a an be allowed as held in Manmohan Manocha Vs Ravinderpal Singh 24 ingh and Another CR-6259-2024 decided on 25.10.2024(PH). Ad be Additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna. The the The proposed evidence was in the knowledge of the petitioner at the nd t the time of leading evidence and now the case at the rebuttal evide be evidence, the petitioner cannot be allowed to produce additional ev ed al evidence and reliance is placed on Rajbala Vs Dharambir and M) and others CR-3396-2021(0&M) decided on 20.12.2021, Baldev S nd ev Singh Vs Harchand Singh and others CR .No.4792 of 2017 (O& ej 7 (O&M) 16.08.2017 and Gurmej Singh Vs Harbhaja Kaur & other ed thers CR No.384 of 2018 decided on 28.11.2018. In view of above s ent ove said facts and law; the present application is bereft of merit erit and the same by is hereby dismissed.” SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 10. I am in complete agreemen of ment with the above said view of Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) the learned Fa d Family Court. The present petition ition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Pending application(s) if an
Decision
if any also stand(s) disposed of. 05.05.2025 Sunena (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)