Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Lal vs Smt.Bimlesh And Others on 24 February, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.1768 of 2013(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.1768 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision:24.02.2014
Mohan Lal .....Petitioner
Versus
Smt.Bimlesh and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 to 4, 7, 8 and 10.
Mr.Charanji Lal, Advocate,
for Mr.P.S.Takkar, Advocate,
for respondent No.9.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially petitioner-plaintiff-Mohan Lal son of Late Shri Karta Ram(for brevity "the plaintiff") has instituted the civil suit(Annexure P-1) against respondents-defendants-Smt.Bimlesh widow of Late Shri Krishan Chand and others(for short "the defendants"), for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner and in possession of 1/3rd share in the land in dispute and the civil court collusive decree dated 05.02.1987 alleged to have been executed by Smt.Mangti Devi in favour of defendant No.2, is illegal, void and not binding on his rights, in any manner. The defendants Rani Seema 2014.02.25 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1768 of 2013(O&M) 2 contested the claim of the plaintiff, filed the written statement(Annexure P-2), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
2. During the pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiff moved an application(Annexure P-5) for permitting him to place on record certified copies of collusive decree dated 05.02.1987, written statement filed by the defendants in Civil Suit No.2CS dated 02.01.1987 and other documents by way of additional evidence. The defendants refuted the prayer of the plaintiff, filed the reply(Annexure P-7) and prayed for dismissal of the application.
3. The trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff to lead additional evidence, by means of impugned order dated 04.03.2013 (Annexure P-8).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect.
6. As is evident from the record that, initially the plaintiff has filed the civil suit(Annexure P-1) against the defendants, in the manner depicted here-in-above. It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application in the trial Court for obtaining the certified copies of the decree dated 05.02.1987 Rani Seema 2014.02.25 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1768 of 2013(O&M) 3 and written statement, wherein the following reports were made on 07.07.2006:-
"Records are deposited in Judicial record room Jagadhri from April, 1987. Hence this file is not kept with us."
"This file was deposited in record room Jagadhri region at Ambala. On date 10.07.2004 there was a sudden fire in the record room. All the records burnt and were raised to ashes. Hence this file cannot be made available. Report is submitted."
7. Thereafter, the plaintiff somehow obtained certified copies of the decree dated 05.02.1987 and written statement filed therein. The trial Court dismissed his application for leading additional evidence, by virtue of impugned order dated 04.03.2013(Annexure P-8). The main ground which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to decline the prayer of the plaintiff for leading additional evidence was that, both the parties have concluded the evidence and the case is now fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Here to me, the trial Court has committed a legal mistake in this regard.
8. Ex facie, it may be true that, the case was listed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, but that ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to negate the plea of the plaintiff, in view of pointed reports. Once, it is proved on record that the plaintiff has already applied for obtaining certified copies of the indicated decree and the record was stated to have been burnt in fire, in that eventuality and taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted one opportunity to the plaintiff, to produce certified copies of the decree dated 05.02.1987 and written statement filed therein. To me, the production of additional evidence is essential to decide the real Rani Seema 2014.02.25 16:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1768 of 2013(O&M) 4 controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. In case, adequate opportunities are not granted to the plaintiff, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his case. Moreover, no prejudice was going to be caused to the respondents-defendants, particularly when, they could well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.03.2013(Annexure P-8) is partly set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the plaintiff to produce certified copies of the judgment & decree dated 05.02.1987 and written statement filed in that suit, as additional evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of `5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensatory costs, to be paid by petitioner-plaintiff to the respondents-defendants personally. At the same time, the payment of costs would be a condition precedent for further prosecution of the case.
February 24, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Rani Seema
2014.02.25 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh