02.09.2025 Decided on Swami Charitable Educational Swami Charitable Educational Society (Regd.) and Another Society v. Krishan Goyal and Others Krishan Goyal and Others
Case Details
CR-6017-2025 (O&M) (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-6017-2025 (O&M) CR Decided on:- 02.09.2025 Decided on Swami Charitable Educational Swami Charitable Educational Society (Regd.) and Another Society (Regd.) and Another ....Petitioners VERSUS Krishan Goyal and Others Krishan Goyal and Others ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M
Legal Reasoning
Having considered the rival contentions and the record, this Court is Having considered the rival contentions and the record, this Court is Having considered the rival contentions and the record, this Court is Having considered the rival contentions and the record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The true test for allowing of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The true test for allowing of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The true test for allowing of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The true test for allowing additional evidence, as repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is additional evidence, as repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is additional evidence, as repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is additional evidence, as repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is cessary for the Court to pronounce judgment in a just whether such evidence is necessary for the Court to pronounce judgment in a just cessary for the Court to pronounce judgment in a just whether such evidence is ne TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.05 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6017-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -3- - K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, manner. The principle has been reiterated in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, manner. The principle has been reiterated in , where the Hon’ble Court held that even after conclusion 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875, where the Hon’ble Court held that even after conclusion , where the Hon’ble Court held that even after conclusion 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875 rmit fresh evidence in exercise of of evidence and arguments, the Court may permit fresh evidence in exercise of of evidence and arguments, the Court may pe of evidence and arguments, the Court may pe inherent power under Section 151 CPC, provided the evidence is bona fide, inherent power under Section 151 CPC, provided the evidence is bona fide, inherent power under Section 151 CPC, provided the evidence is bona fide, inherent power under Section 151 CPC, provided the evidence is bona fide, production is justified by valid reasons. The Court relevant and its earlier non-production is justified by valid reasons. The Court production is justified by valid reasons. The Court relevant and its earlier non t to obstruct it. further observed that procedure is intended to advance justice, not to obstruct it. further observed that procedure is intended to advance justice, no further observed that procedure is intended to advance justice, no Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) through LRs, 2016 AIR (SC) 1343, it Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) through LRs, 2016 AIR (SC) 1343 Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) through LRs, 2016 AIR (SC) 1343 Similarly, in Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) through LRs, 2016 AIR (SC) 1343 was held that where additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and has was held that where additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and has was held that where additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and has was held that where additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and has decisive bearing on the issues, it must be admitted, subject to appropriate decisive bearing on the issues, it must be admitted, subject to appropriate decisive bearing on the issues, it must be admitted, subject to appropriate decisive bearing on the issues, it must be admitted, subject to appropriate safeguards. 6. Singh is not only In the present case, the statement of Balbir Singh is not only In the present case, the statement of In the present case, the statement of subsequent in time but also vital. It directly contradicts the testimony of DW-2, subsequent in time but also vital. It directly contradicts the testimony of DW subsequent in time but also vital. It directly contradicts the testimony of DW subsequent in time but also vital. It directly contradicts the testimony of DW and, therefore, its exclusion would result in the Court deciding the case on an its exclusion would result in the Court deciding the case on an its exclusion would result in the Court deciding the case on an y misleading record. The petitioner cannot be faulted for not incomplete and possibly misleading record. The petitioner cannot be faulted for not y misleading record. The petitioner cannot be faulted for not incomplete and possibl producing this earlier, since it came into existence after closure of evidence. To producing this earlier, since it came into existence after closure of evidence. To producing this earlier, since it came into existence after closure of evidence. To producing this earlier, since it came into existence after closure of evidence. To deny its production merely because the matter was fixed for arguments would deny its production merely because the matter was fixed for arguments would deny its production merely because the matter was fixed for arguments would deny its production merely because the matter was fixed for arguments would amount to elevating procedure above justice. amount to elevating procedure above 7. ourt erred This Court also finds merit in the contention that the trial Court erred This Court also finds merit in the contention that the trial This Court also finds merit in the contention that the trial in treating the application as belated without appreciating that the events on which in treating the application as belated without appreciating that the events on which in treating the application as belated without appreciating that the events on which in treating the application as belated without appreciating that the events on which the petitioner relies i.e. the FIR and subsequent investigation, the petitioner relies are developments IR and subsequent investigation, are developments beyond the petitioner’s control. The trial C ourt also overlooked the fact that etitioner’s control. The trial Court also overlooked the fact that ourt also overlooked the fact that defendants themselves had earlier been permitted to adduce additional evidence. defendants themselves had earlier been permitted to adduce additional evidence. defendants themselves had earlier been permitted to adduce additional evidence. defendants themselves had earlier been permitted to adduce additional evidence. Once such latitude was extended to one party, fairness demanded that the Once such latitude was extended to one party, fairness demanded that the Once such latitude was extended to one party, fairness demanded that the Once such latitude was extended to one party, fairness demanded that the n opportunity to produce material of decisive value. petitioner also be given an opportunity to produce material of decisive value. petitioner also be given a TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.05 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6017-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -4- - 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and has occasioned miscarriage impugned order suffers from material irregularity and has occasioned miscarriage impugned order suffers from material irregularity and has occasioned miscarriage impugned order suffers from material irregularity and has occasioned miscarriage lowed. The impugned order dated of justice. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated of justice. The revision petition is accordingly al of justice. The revision petition is accordingly al 10.07.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 10.07.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 10.07.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 10.07.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 Senior CPC is allowed. The petitioner shall be permitted to examine concerned Senior CPC is allowed. The petitioner shall be permitted to examine CPC is allowed. The petitioner shall be permitted to examine to payment of costs Assistant, and to produce on record related documents, subject to payment of costs Assistant, and to produce on record related documents, subject Assistant, and to produce on record related documents, subject to the respondents and subject to one effective opportunity to be given of ₹5000/- to the respondents and subject to one effective opportunity to be given to the respondents and subject to one effective opportunity to be given to the respondents and subject to one effective opportunity to be given . The respondents shall have due opportunity to cross- by the learned trial Court. The respondents shall have due opportunity to cross . The respondents shall have due opportunity to cross by the learned trial Court examine and to lead rebuttal evidence to additional evidence examine and to lead rebuttal evidence to additional evidence, if so advis , if so advised. the case shall proceed to final arguments without avoidable delay. Thereafter, the case shall proceed to final arguments without avoidable delay. the case shall proceed to final arguments without avoidable delay. 9. Accordingly, the present revision petition Accordingly, the present r said evision petition is allowed in the above-said terms 10.
Arguments
Mr. Sumeet Jain, and Mr. Vishesh Jain, Advocates Mr. Sumeet Jain, and Mr. Vishesh Jain Present: Mr. Sumeet Jain, and Mr. Vishesh Jain for the petitioner for the petitioners. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 This revision petition is passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Derabassi, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Derabassi, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Derabassi, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Derabassi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence h Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence h Brief facts 2. Society filed a suit for declaration against the The petitioner-Society filed a suit for declaration against the Society filed a suit for declaration against the The petitioner respondents. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6 filed their written statement and respondents. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6 filed their written statement and respondents. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6 filed their written statement and respondents. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6 filed their written statement and issues were framed. Parties led their respective evidence. Respondent No.4, issues were framed. Parties led their respective evidence. Respondent No.4, issues were framed. Parties led their respective evidence. Respondent No.4, issues were framed. Parties led their respective evidence. Respondent No.4, 2 and in his deposition stated Additional Registrar of Societies, appeared as DW-2 and in his deposition stated Additional Registrar of Societies, appeared as DW Additional Registrar of Societies, appeared as DW Society had been rejected vide order dated that amendments made by the plaintiff-Society had been rejected vide order dated Society had been rejected vide order dated that amendments made by the plaintiff 13.11.2017, but simultaneously admitted that the governing body of the Society 13.11.2017, but simultaneously admitted that the governing body of the Society 13.11.2017, but simultaneously admitted that the governing body of the Society 13.11.2017, but simultaneously admitted that the governing body of the Society proved. He further admitted that certified copies issued by his was shown as approved. He further admitted that certified copies issued by his proved. He further admitted that certified copies issued by his was shown as ap office signified approval of the records. The case was thereafter adjourned for the office signified approval of the records. The case was thereafter adjourned for the office signified approval of the records. The case was thereafter adjourned for the office signified approval of the records. The case was thereafter adjourned for the evidence of the defendants. evidence of the defendants. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.05 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6017-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -2- - 3. During pendency of trial, defendants No.1 to 3 themselves moved an During pendency of trial, defendants No.1 to 3 themselves moved an During pendency of trial, defendants No.1 to 3 themselves moved an During pendency of trial, defendants No.1 to 3 themselves moved an ion for leading additional evidence which was allowed. When the matter application for leading additional evidence which was allowed. When the matter ion for leading additional evidence which was allowed. When the matter ion for leading additional evidence which was allowed. When the matter was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed the present application for was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed the present application for was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed the present application for was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed the present application for additional evidence, placing reliance on the subsequent events arising out of FIR additional evidence, placing reliance on the subsequent events arising out of FIR additional evidence, placing reliance on the subsequent events arising out of FIR additional evidence, placing reliance on the subsequent events arising out of FIR No.0028, dated 21.01.20 23 registered against private respondents on dated 21.01.2023 registered against private respondents on 23 registered against private respondents on the the the Society. During allegations of forgery of bogus resolutions of the petitioner-Society. During allegations of forgery of bogus resolutions of the petitioner allegations of forgery of bogus resolutions of the petitioner Singh, Senior Assistant in the office of investigation, the statement of Balbir Singh, Senior Assistant in the office of Singh, Senior Assistant in the office of investigation, the statement of Additional Registrar (Societies), Mohali, was rec Additional Registrar (Societies), Mohali, orded, wherein he clearly stated was recorded, wherein he clearly stated that no recognition was ever granted to the alleged governing body set up by that no recognition was ever granted to the alleged governing body set up by that no recognition was ever granted to the alleged governing body set up by that no recognition was ever granted to the alleged governing body set up by respondent No.1 and that the only valid and recognised governing body was that of respondent No.1 and that the only valid and recognised governing body was that of respondent No.1 and that the only valid and recognised governing body was that of respondent No.1 and that the only valid and recognised governing body was that of ng was ever issued in the petitioner. He further clarified that no certificate of filing was ever issued in the petitioner. He further clarified that no certificate of fili the petitioner. He further clarified that no certificate of fili called governing body of respondent No.1. respect of the so-called governing body of respondent No.1. respect of the so 4. It is this material i.e a subsequent development It is this material a subsequent development which was which was not which the petitioner available at the time of recording the plaintiff’s evidence and which the petitioner available at the time of recording the plaintiff’s evidence available at the time of recording the plaintiff’s evidence rd by way of additional evidence. This is not an attempt to seeks to bring on record by way of additional evidence. This is not an attempt to rd by way of additional evidence. This is not an attempt to seeks to bring on reco fill lacunae, but to place before the Court material which directly contradicts the fill lacunae, but to place before the Court material which directly contradicts the fill lacunae, but to place before the Court material which directly contradicts the fill lacunae, but to place before the Court material which directly contradicts the 2 and goes to the very root of the controversy. The learned trial testimony of DW-2 and goes to the very root of the controversy. The learned trial 2 and goes to the very root of the controversy. The learned trial testimony of DW Court, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the trial had ourt, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the trial had application on the ground that the trial had concluded, that one record clerk had already been examined, and that recalling concluded, that one record clerk had already been examined, and that recalling concluded, that one record clerk had already been examined, and that recalling concluded, that one record clerk had already been examined, and that recalling observed another officer from the Registrar’s office was not justified. It was also observed another officer from the Registrar’s office was not justified. It was also another officer from the Registrar’s office was not justified. It was also that the application was belated. that the application was belated. 5.
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. September 02, 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 2025.09.05 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document