High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 5 5 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120(2) upta Mannu Gupta Priyanka CR-2703-2025(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 ) r dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P6) whereby appl application for leading rebuttal ev er l evidence in reference to order dated 18.03.2 .03.2025 (Annexure P3) whereby he reby application moved by the respondent fo t for putting objection to the inte ce intended documentary evidence has already be y been dismissed, thus, the impug nt pugned order suffers from patent illegalities in th in the eyes of law. 2. Learned counsel for the he the petitioner submits that the respondent ha t had previously moved an applica ing plication dated 18.2.2025, raising objections to to the intended documentary he ry evidence in rebuttal by the petitioner. Th . The application of the responde er ndent was dismissed vide order dated 18.3.202 .2025 (Annexure P3). SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 3. Then the petitioner had Page 2 of 5 5 (cid:1) ion ad filed the present application dated 24.03.20 3.2025 (Annexure P4) for tendering he ring evidence in rebuttal. Vide the said applicatio ation, the petitioner had sought to ce t to tender on record the evidence led between t en the parties in the proceedings he ngs under Section 125 CRPC, the certified copie opies thereof, as well as the CD an ion and the telephonic conversation between the the respondent and another wom led oman. The respondent had filed reply dated 28 d 28.3.2025 (Annexure P5), to the he the above said application of the petitioner. Ho However, vide the impugned orde re order dated 18.4.2025 (Annexure P6), the said a id application of the petitioner has has been dismissed. 4. It is submitted by learned c at ed counsel for the petitioner that the rebuttal e tal evidence sought to be brought he ught on record is rebuttal to the issues onus of which is upon the respond he ondent. It is submitted that the certified copy copy of the evidence between th 25 the parties in the section 125 proceedings a gs are within the knowledge of the no the respondent; and therefore, no prejudice will will be caused to her. It is further er her submitted that the petitioner came to kno know of the conversation transc ith nscript of the respondent with another wom oman later on, and these facts er cts are necessary for the proper adjudication o on of the matter. It is accordingly pr er ly prayed that the impugned order e. be set aside. 5. 6. 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. SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 7. Brief facts of the case Page 3 of 5 5 (cid:1) as se 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 09 n 09.01.2017, who is in the care an - e and custody of the respondent- wife. The pet petitioner had filed a petition un du under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act Act for grant of divorce (Annexur he exure P1) in 2019 to which the respondent ha t had filed reply dated 30.10.2020 er 020 (Annexure P2). The petitioner had previously usly also filed an application dated ion ated 3.3.2025, seeking permission to lead additi dditional evidence; which was dism ily dismissed by the learned Family Court vide or e order dated 18.3.2025. The sa as said order dated 18.3.2025 was
Legal Reasoning
challenged by by the petitioner before this C 25; Court by way of CR-2711-2025; which has bee been dismissed by this Court, vide . vide order of even date/5.5.2025. After dismissa issal of application for addition ed itional evidence by order dated 18.3.2025, the , the petitioner has filed the presen 25 esent application dated 24.3.2025 seeking to lea lead the very same oral as well at well as documentary evidence at rebuttal evide vidence stage. 8. It is undisputed that the dy e proposed evidence was already in the knowle owledge of petitioner at time of ce of leading affirmative evidence however, he h he has failed to produce the same. as me. Moreover, the petitioner has never put abo above-said proposed evidence to r er to respondent at the time of her cross-examina ination. Even further, as per Order ity rder 18 Rule 3 CPC, an opportunity to lead eviden idence in rebuttal can be granted re ted only qua those issues where burden of pro proof lay upon respondent, and w ed nd where petitioner has reserved SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) his right of reb f rebuttal. It is not denied that in th Page 4 of 5 5 (cid:1) er in the present case the petitioner has not reserv eserved his right to lead evidence of nce in rebuttal. Thus, his right of leading eviden idence in rebuttal stands extinguish ed uished, and he cannot be allowed to lead affirma age. irmative evidence at rebuttal stage. 9. Relevant findings of learne rned Family Court are as under:- “5. The petitioner wants to lead as lead above said oral as well as documentary evidence at reb he rebuttal evidence stage. The proposed evidence was already the ready in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of leading a er, ing affirmative evidence, however, the petitioner has failed to prod the produce the same. Moreover, the petitioner had never put above s the ve said proposed evidence to the respondent at the time of her cro der r cross-examination. As per Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, an opportunity to t ce y to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal could be granted only the only qua those issues, where the burden of proof lay upon the the the respondent and where the petitioner had reserved his right of ight of rebuttal in the absence of which his right of leading e g evidence uld in rebuttal would stand extinguished his right as Vs t as held in Hardial Singh Vs Davinder Singh(PH): Law Finder of der Doc Id#1662913, CR-5466 of 2016 decided on 06.01.2020. Rel gh . Reliance is placed on Joga Singh Vs Jarnail Singh & others (PH), on H), CR-5088 of 2019 decided on 06.03.2024, wherein it was held t ot eld that once the plaintiff did not reserve his right to lead rebuttal e ing ttal evidence at the time of closing his affirmative evidence, his right ds right to claim said benefit stands forfeited and the plaintiff cannot fo tal nnot be allowed to lead rebuttal evidence. Reliance is placed on hil on Munshi Ram & others Vs Sushil Chand & others, CR no.1233 of on 3 of 2017 (0&M)(PH), decided on 25.04.2022, wherein it was held th ot eld that Order 18 Rule 3 would not SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) give a right to plaintiff to lead evi Page 5 of 5 5 (cid:1) , in d evidence in rebuttal on issues, in which onus of proof is on plaintiff. intiff.” 10. I am in complete agreeme ew ement with the above said view taken by the l he learned Family Court. The prese ds resent petition accordingly stands 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)