Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs Nahar Singh And Others on 19 March, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Revision No.2011 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2011 of 2014
Date of Decision:19.03.2014
Gurdeep Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
Nahar Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The challenge, in this petition preferred by petitioner- plaintiff-Gurdeep Singh son of Nihal Singh, is to the impugned order dated 20.02.2014(Annexure P-5), by virtue of which, the trial Court has dismissed his application(Annexure P-1), to disallow the contesting- defendant Nos.1 to 3, to produce the memorandum of family settlement dated 27.12.1987 on record.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
3. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has instituted the civil suit against the defendants for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner and in peaceful possession to the extent of half share in respect of the land in dispute. The defendants contested the Rani Seema 2014.03.25 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2011 of 2014 2 claim of the plaintiff, filed the written statement and pleaded that they became the owner of the disputed land in pursuance of family settlement dated 27.12.1987. Although, they have set-up the plea of pointed family settlement, but they could not produce the same at the time of filing the written statement.
4. Taking into consideration the entire facts and material on record, the trial Court correctly permitted the contesting defendants to produce the indicated family settlement on record, by way of impugned order(Annexure P-5), which, in substance, is as under:-
"This court is of the view that as per Order 8 Rule 1-A, sub clause (3) CPC, the document could be filed by the defendant at a later stage but only with the leave of the Court. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana titled "Santosh Aggarwal Vs. Pardeep Kumar and others, 2010 (4) PLR 594", wherein it has been observed that if the documentary evidence not filed with the pleadings the same can be filed at a subsequent stage with the leave of the court. Thus, relying upon the said judgment and the legal provisions involved, the application moved by the plaintiff is dismissed and the other moved by defendants is allowed. The defendant No.1 is burdened with costs of Rs.500/- to be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 is allowed to prove the original writing dated 27.12.1987. However, it is made clear that only one opportunity is given to the defendant No.1 to prove the said document. Now case is adjourned to 25.2.2014 for payment of costs and for proving original writing dated 27.12.1987."
5. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of superintendence jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the Rani Seema 2014.03.25 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2011 of 2014 3 same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order(Annexure P-5) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such.
March 19, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Rani Seema
2014.03.25 12:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh