Seth Nain Sukh Dass Seth Nain Sukh Dass Ram Dass Parivrik Dharamarth Trust (Regd.) v. Ashok Gulia and Others Ashok Gulia and Others
Case Details
(O&M) CR-5597-2025 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-5597-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 25.08.2025 Decided on : Seth Nain Sukh Dass Seth Nain Sukh Dass Ram Dass Parivrik Dharamarth Trust (Regd.) Parivrik Dharamarth Trust (Regd.) ....Petitioner VERSUS Ashok Gulia and Others Ashok Gulia and Others ....Respondents
Legal Reasoning
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Rupam K. Aggarwal , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rupam K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated The present revision petition is directed against the order dated The present revision petition is directed against the order dated The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 09.07.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 09.07.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 09.07.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) read with Section 151 for leading rebuttal evidence was dismissed. leading rebuttal evidence w 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record. through the record. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that an earlier application was moved by Perusal of the record reveals that an earlier application was moved by Perusal of the record reveals that an earlier application was moved by Perusal of the record reveals that an earlier application was moved by the petitioner seeking permission to produce the very same documents by way of the petitioner seeking permission to produce the very same documents by way the petitioner seeking permission to produce the very same documents by way the petitioner seeking permission to produce the very same documents by way additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before vide order dated 05.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before vide order dated 05.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before vide order dated 05.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before ordinate Bench vide order this Court, which too came to be dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench vide order this Court, which too came to be dismissed by a co this Court, which too came to be dismissed by a co 4.2025. In the said order, it was specifically observed that the petitioner dated 08.04.2025. In the said order, it was specifically observed that the petitioner 4.2025. In the said order, it was specifically observed that the petitioner 4.2025. In the said order, it was specifically observed that the petitioner 66 and 2001- had already produced on record the Jamabandis for the years 1965-66 and 2001 had already produced on record the Jamabandis for the years 1965 had already produced on record the Jamabandis for the years 1965 2002, and nothing had been shown as to how the Jamabandis now sought to be 2002, and nothing had been shown as to how the Jamabandis now sought to be 2002, and nothing had been shown as to how the Jamabandis now sought to be 2002, and nothing had been shown as to how the Jamabandis now sought to be ould further advance the petitioner’s case. It was produced for earlier years would further advance the petitioner’s case. It was ould further advance the petitioner’s case. It was produced for earlier years w TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CR-5597-2025 (O&M) -2- - further noticed that the documents pertain to a period much prior to the filing of further noticed that the documents pertain to a period much prior to the filing of further noticed that the documents pertain to a period much prior to the filing of further noticed that the documents pertain to a period much prior to the filing of the suit, and it could not be said that the petitioner was unaware of their existence. the suit, and it could not be said that the petitioner was unaware of their existence. the suit, and it could not be said that the petitioner was unaware of their existence. the suit, and it could not be said that the petitioner was unaware of their existence. rely upon them, such evidence should have been If at all the petitioner desired to rely upon them, such evidence should have been rely upon them, such evidence should have been If at all the petitioner desired to led at the stage of affirmative evidence. led at the stage of affirmative evidence. 3. ordinate Bench of this Court had already considered and Once the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already considered and ordinate Bench of this Court had already considered and Once the co agitate rejected the very plea of the petitioner, it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate rejected the very plea of the petitioner, it is not open to the petitioner to re rejected the very plea of the petitioner, it is not open to the petitioner to re ame issue by filing another application on identical grounds, only changing the same issue by filing another application on identical grounds, only changing ame issue by filing another application on identical grounds, only changing ame issue by filing another application on identical grounds, only changing the nomenclature from “additional evidence” to “rebuttal evidence.” Merely the nomenclature from “additional evidence” to “rebuttal evidence.” Merely the nomenclature from “additional evidence” to “rebuttal evidence.” Merely the nomenclature from “additional evidence” to “rebuttal evidence.” Merely because an SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the because an SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the because an SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the because an SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the e the petitioner to maintain a fresh application before earlier order would not entitle the petitioner to maintain a fresh application before e the petitioner to maintain a fresh application before earlier order would not entitl the trial Court on the same set of facts and documents. The findings recorded by the trial Court on the same set of facts and documents. The findings recorded by the trial Court on the same set of facts and documents. The findings recorded by the trial Court on the same set of facts and documents. The findings recorded by the trial Court as well as in the earlier revision categorically hold that such the trial Court as well as in the earlier revision categorically hold that such the trial Court as well as in the earlier revision categorically hold that such the trial Court as well as in the earlier revision categorically hold that such rmative evidence, and cannot now be evidence ought to have been led in affirmative evidence, and cannot now be rmative evidence, and cannot now be evidence ought to have been led in affi permitted at the stage of rebuttal. permitted at the stage of rebuttal. 4. The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 does not suffer from any The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 does not suffer from any The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 does not suffer from any The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned trial Court has rightly declined the request of illegality or perversity. The learned trial Court has rightly declined the request of illegality or perversity. The learned trial Court has rightly declined the request of illegality or perversity. The learned trial Court has rightly declined the request of made out for interference in exercise of revisional the petitioner, and no ground is made out for interference in exercise of revisional made out for interference in exercise of revisional the petitioner, and no ground is jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. same stands dismissed. 6.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 25, 2025 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document