Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Lal vs Gurcharan Singh on 5 October, 2013
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.4310 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 5.10.2013
Sohan Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
Gurcharan Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mrs. G.K. Turka, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Tulli, Advocate for
Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the respondent. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) CM-19578-CII-2013:
This is an application for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased petitioner i.e. Sohan Lal.
Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. The applicants are directed to be impleaded as legal representatives of deceased-petitioner Sohan Lal. Amended memo of parties be taken on record. Registry to page mark the paper book accordingly. CR-4310-2012:
Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.5.2012, passed by the court below whereby application moved by petitioner to direct the plaintiff to get his sample voice recorded, has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. According to her, plaintiff admitted certain facts in the recording which Singh Rajpal 2013.10.09 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh are relevant for decision of the case. The trial court has gravely erred in rejecting the prayer made in the application.
Learned counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. According to him, defendant/petitioner could not be allowed to create evidence against the plaintiff by moving such an application.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
A suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 22.10.2003 was filed by plaintiff Gurcharan Singh seeking a direction to the defendant to execute a sale deed and to get the same registered as per terms of agreement. As the case reached the stage of defendants' evidence, instant application was moved praying that plaintiff be directed to get his voice recorded as he had admitted certain facts before a large gathering of people. Trial court rejected the plea observing that oral evidence could not have any value in the face of documentary evidence available on record. This apart, defendant could not be allowed to create evidence by moving such an application. I find no infirmity with the order passed by the court below. There is no ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 5.10.2013 'rajpal' Singh Rajpal 2013.10.09 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh