Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neelam And Another vs Vijay Kumar And Another on 12 February, 2009
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.4834 of 2007
Date of decision: 12.2.2009
Neelam and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Kumar and another ......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
* * *
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 30.8.2007 whereby the application of the petitioners for leading additional evidence has been rejected on the ground that the evidence of the petitioners was closed by order of the Court dated 8.9.2005 and if this application for leading additional evidence is allowed that will simply mean bye passing the earlier order whereby their evidence was closed by order.
The case came up for motion hearing before this Court on 20.9.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case Prem Lata v. Ram Sarup 2006(1) PLR 477 contended that the application for additional evidence can be maintained even if the evidence has been ordered to be closed by order of the Court.
I have gone through the aforesaid judgment. In the aforesaid judgment, vide impugned order the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioners was closed by order and while setting aside the same, this Court observed that if the petitioner is not allowed to complete her evidence, an irreparable loss is likely to be caused to her. Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it. There is no dispute with CR No.4834 of 2007 -2- the aforesaid proposition of law as stated in this judgment. However, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in this judgment, this Court has held that application for additional evidence can be maintained even if the evidence has been ordered to be closed by order of the Court, is not borne out from the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, a clear attempt has been made by the petitioners to mislead this Court.
In view of this, this petition is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.5,000/-. The respondents will be entitled to recover the said costs in accordance with law.
February 12, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE