Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Leela Rani vs General Public And Others on 3 February, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 5017 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5017 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 3.2.2010
Smt. Leela Rani
.. Petitioner
v.
General Public and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M. M. Mohan, Advocate for the General Public.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.8.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order of the Court.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a petition for being appointed as a guardian of Bhagwan Dass, claiming herself to be his Tai. The petition was filed on 3.2.2004 and the same being still at the evidence stage and the petitioner having failed to conclude her evidence in spite of number of opportunities, the learned court below vide impugned order closed her evidence. It is this order, which is impugned in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is real Chachi of Bhagwan Dass, who was living with her ever since his parents expired. He is son of her Devar (husband's brother). Father of Bhagwan Dass had solemnised another marriage from which a girl was born. The husband of other daughter of father of Bhagwan Dass kidnapped Bhagwan Dass and dispute started thereafter, as their effort was to grab the property owned by him. Bhagwan Dass is simpleton. He does not understand his good or bad. For that and to take care of him and also his property, the petition was filed in the court for appointment of guardian. The petitioner is not at all interested in the property of Bhagwan Dass, which is evident from the fact that for many years, during which Bhagwan Dass lived with her, she did not do anything which could put a dent on her credential. He further submitted that the only evidence which is required to be led is in the Civil Revision No. 5017 of 2009 [2] form of cross-examination of one Jagdish Ram son of Sadhu Ram, whose affidavit of statement of examination-in-chief is already on record. Besides that, two other witnesses, who were residents of the village, are required to produced to prove the fact that Bhagwan Dass had been residing with the petitioner since long and he is simpleton.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a perusal of zimni orders, placed on record by the petitioner herself, show that number of opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to conclude her evidence. However, she had not been able to avail of them effectively. The petition filed by her was pending for the last about 5-1/2 years, when her evidence was closed. It was further submitted that on earlier occasion also, a dispute at the interim stage in the present proceedings had come to this Court by way of Civil Revision No. 1630 of 2005, when an application filed by the petitioner to get Bhagwan Dass medically examined was dismissed. At that stage, this court had interacted with Bhagwan Dass, who was present in court and even a counsel was also requested to interact with him and put his observations before the court. It was found by the court that prima facie Bhagwan Dass could not be termed as lunatic or of unsound mind and finally the prayer for medical examination of Bhagwan Dass was rejected vide order dated 7.12.2006. Even otherwise, considering the dispute in the proceedings pending in the court below, the evidence sought to be led by the petitioner has no relevance as the co-villagers cannot possibly opine about the mental state of Bhagwan Dass and that too over and above the prima facie opining expressed by this Court. Merely if Bhagwan Dass was residing with the petitioner did not have any bearing on the petition pending in the court below for getting him declared as a lunatic or the petitioner as his guardian.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. From a perusal of the material on record, in my opinion, the present petition is mis-conceived. The zimni orders produced by the petitioner on record show that the petitioner was getting her evidence recorded piecemeal. Number of opportunities were granted to her. On many occasions, no PW was present in spite of the fact that last opportunities were granted to the petitioner. The petition was filed way back on 3.2.2004 and was pending before the court for more than 5-1/2 years. Further, the observations by this court while deciding the earlier lis between the parties, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for getting Bhagwan Dass medically examined was dismissed, are also relevant, which are extracted below:
"On December 4, 2006 when this case had last come up for hearing, Civil Revision No. 5017 of 2009 [3] to support his contention learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that if this court was to interact with Bhagwan Dass even for a few minutes it would definitely come to the conclusion that he was of unsound mind. Bhagwan Dass was present in court. I had called him to the Dias and asked him few questions. He replied all of them correctly. Thus prima facie I could not come to any conclusion as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, since I was very reluctant to refer Bhagwan Dass for medical examination to assess whether he was of unsound mind or not as I do not want to put any person through such a test needlessly especially in view of the allegations and counter allegations made by both the parties against each other, I had appointed Mr. Ajay Tewari, a counsel of this court as amicus curiae to interact with Bhagwan Dass and to convey his impressions to Court. Thereafter Mr. Tewari has interacted with Bhagwan Dass and has submitted his opinion to this court in writing. The relevant part of the opining given is as hereunder:
"As directed by this Hon'ble Court the undersigned met the aforesaid Bhagwan Dass in the presence of Sh. K. S. Dhadwal, Advocate, Sh. Sunil Agnihotry, Advocate and Tarlok Singh, brother-in-law (Jija) of Bhagwan Dass. The undersigned spent about 15 minutes talking to the aforesaid Bhagwan Dass. Bhagwan Dass answered all questions relating to his ancestry (upto two degrees). He knew the approximate date/s of birth and death of his parents and his sister. He also knew the geographical location of his village and that of his brother-in-law. He had a fair idea about the value of his land and expressed his desire to sell his share of land in the entire land (incidentally joint with the sons of the petitioner and in their possession). He levelled serious allegations against the petitioner and her family and was adamant that he would ensure that no part of his property should fall into their hands. He expressed the desire to sell this land and bury other land in the village of his brother-in-law. When the undersigned asked him what he intended to do with this property, he expressed a wish that he wanted to leave it to his niece.
All in all this inter action with the aforesaid Bhagwan Civil Revision No. 5017 of 2009 [4] Dass prima facie reveals that he cannot be termed as being lunatic or of unsound mind of course by the standard of an ordinary layman without any medical training. At worst he could be termed some what simple minded in so much as he had definite and lucid ideas about his interest."
In view of the aforesaid, I am satisfied that there is no error in the order passed by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking medical examination of Bhagwan Dass by terming him to be a lunatic. The main application for appointment of the petitioner as guardian of Bhagwan Dass still remains pending before the learned District Judge. The same would be decided by the learned District Judge after allowing the parties to adduce evidence and if at that stage the court finds some justification for medical examination, it could always order the same. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the learned District Judge so as to warrant interference of this Court by way of present revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed."
Still further, while considering prayer for setting aside the order closing the evidence of the petitioner and permitting her to lead further evidence, this court would be failing in its duty in case it is not considered as to whether the evidence sought to be led has any relevance with the case in hand or not. All what the petitioner is seeking to produce is in the form of statements of three co- villagers who, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, would corroborate the stand of the petitioner to the effect that Bhagwan Dass lived with the petitioner for quite some time after his parents expired and further that he is simpleton. That, in my opinion, is not relevant at all for the purpose of decision of lis between the parties, especially considering the earlier order passed by this Court. No material produced before the court below after the passing of order dated 7.12.2006 has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner to dis-lodge the prima facie opinion expressed by this court in the earlier litigation.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.2.2010 mk Civil Revision No. 5017 of 2009 [5]