Punjab-Haryana High Court
Renu Goyal vs Madhu Sharma @ Madhu Bala on 10 September, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6121 of 2014
Date of decision: 10th September, 2014
Renu Goyal
...Petitioner
Versus
Madhu Sharma alias Madhu Bala
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner Renu Goyal has preferred this petition against Madhu Sharma alias Madhu Bala-respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 08.08.2014 (Annexures P-5 and P-6), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh, District Mewat, vide which applications for leading additional evidence and recalling of witness filed by respondent has been allowed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
The learned trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-5), allowed the application of the respondent-defendant (hereinreferred as 'the defendant') for leading additional evidence i.e. statement of Jagbir Singh and the document alleged to be drafted by MAMTA MALHOTRA 2014.09.29 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6121 of 2014 [2] Harish Kumar, Advocate.
From the facts, I find that Harish Kumar, Advocate, while appearing as a witness in witness box, deposed that he has drafted the agreement Ex.P1 on the instructions of both the parties. As per defendant, Harish Kumar, Advocate never drafted the alleged agreement Ex.P1. He used to sign the documents ante dated. In another case of Jagbir Singh, he got signed a document from Harish Kumar, Advocate ante dated and gave his affidavit in evidence. The learned Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties held that the grievance of the applicant is that Harish Kumar, Advocate, used to sign on the ante-dated documents and he has to prove this fact by way of evidence of Jagbir Singh. The trial Court also relied upon the law laid down in case Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu, versus Union of India 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 531 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court has inherent power to call for any witness at any stage either suo-motu or on the prayer of a party invoking the inherent power of the Court. Therefore, the learned trial Court allowed this application.
Perusal of the order shows that no illegality has been committed on the face of it by accepting this application by the trial Court.
As regarding the relevancy of the statement of this witness, the Court will see at the time of final arguments whether the plea taken by defendant that Harish Kumar, Advocate used to sign MAMTA MALHOTRA 2014.09.29 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6121 of 2014 [3] ante-dated documents etc. is proved from the evidence or not.
Therefore, from the above discussion, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order (Annexurfe P-5), therefore, the same is upheld.
As regarding the order dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-6), an application for summoning/recalling Harish Kumar Advocate for his voice recognition was filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant contended that Harish Kumar, Advocate has given his statement before the trial Court while appearing as plaintiff- petitioner's witness and after his examination, he stated some real facts about the execution of agreement in question which was got recorded in electronic device and attached with the application. It is also prayed in the application that he may be summoned for his voice recording.
Learned trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-6) accepted this application by relaying upon the law laid down in K.K.Vatusamy versus N.Palanisamy 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875 in which it is held that electronically recorded conversation is admissible in evidence, if the conversation is relevant to the matter in issue and the voice is identified and the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasure, additional or manipulation. Again the order dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-6) is correct and as per law and no illegality MAMTA MALHOTRA 2014.09.29 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6121 of 2014 [4] has been committed by the learned trial Court while passing it and this order does not require any interference by this Court.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
10th September, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH)
mamta JUDGE
MAMTA MALHOTRA
2014.09.29 15:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh