Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs Surinder Kaur & Ors on 14 January, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CR No.177 of 2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.177 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.1.2014
Ranjit Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
Surinder Kaur & Ors.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Avnidha Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral)
The conspectus of the facts & material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, petitioner-plaintiff Ranjit Singh s/o Dalip Singh (for brevity "the plaintiff") has instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of partition by metes and bounds and for separate possession of the house in question against defendant-respondents Surinder Kaur & others (for short "the defendants"). The defendants contested the claim of plaintiff, filed the written statements (Annexures P2 & P3), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for its dismissal.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the contesting defendants No.1 to 3 moved the application (Annexure P5) for leading additional evidence u/s 151 CPC, inter-alia pleading that Bhagwan Kaur (defendant No.3) became the owner of the house in litigation, vide decree dated 21.10.1993 and defendants No.1 to 3 want to prove the copies of indicated judgment & Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.17 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.177 of 2014 (O&M) 2 decree, by way of additional evidence, which, inadvertently, could not be tendered into evidence by their counsel. The plaintiff refuted the claim of defendants, filed the reply (Annexure P6) stoutly denying all the allegations contained in it and prayed for its dismissal.
3. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court accepted the application (Annexure P5) and permitted the contesting defendants to prove the aforesaid judgment by virtue of additional evidence, subject to payment of ` 1000/- as costs, by means of impugned order dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure P8).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the pointed judgment and decree were already in existence, so, the trial Court committed legal mistake to permit defendant Nos.1 to 3 to produce/prove the same by way of additional evidence, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
7. As is evident from the record that the case of defendant No.3 was that she became owner of the disputed house, by means of decree dated 21.10.1993 of the civil Court and defendants No.1 to 3 want to prove the indicated judgment and decree by way of additional evidence. To me, the production of these documents is essential to decide the real controversy Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.17 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.177 of 2014 (O&M) 3 between the parties. The mere fact that the judgment & decree in question were in existence and were not tendered into evidence by counsel for defendants, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to deny the defendants to prove and produce the same. Above-all, the party cannot be permitted to suffer on account of inaction and negligence on the part of the counsel.
8. Moreover, the trial Court appears to have correctly accepted the application (Annexure P5) filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3, by means of impugned order (Annexure P8), which, in substance, is as under (paras 8 &
9) :-
"8. The plaintiff has also taken up a plea to the effect that the present application has been filed with a view to fill up the lacuna of the case and the defendant has not placed on record the copy of said judgment and decree, as is required under Order 13 Rule 1 of C.P.C. However, the perusal of the file reveals that the aforesaid plea of the plaintiff does not effect the merits of the present application. The perusal of the file reveals that the defendant no.1 to 3 have specifically discussed the judgment and decree in question in the written statement. However, the defendants have not placed on record the copy of judgment and decree along with the pleadings. The defendants can be penalized by way of costs on this point, as they had not placed on record the copy of judgment and decree while filing the written statements. The present suit is for partition of the suit property. The court is required to determine the share of parties while passing preliminary decree. The defendant no.4 in this case has taken up a plea that in the judgment and decree in question, she was given 1/4th share in the property in question. As such, the aforesaid document is material piece of evidence, which goes into the root of the case. The aforesaid documents cannot be termed as to be filling up the lacunas of the case. The defendants cannot be permitted to suffer due to lapse on the part of the counsel to place on record the said judgment.
9. It is endeavour of every court to prove the permit parties to prove the case. Mere fact that the counsel for the defendant has failed to prove the said document on record, does not divest the defendants to prove the same. The defendant can prove the document by way of additional evidence, as defendants have placed specific reliance upon the same and said judgment and decree goes to the root of the case, as it would assist the court in determining the share of parties."Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.17 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.177 of 2014 (O&M) 4
9. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and has recorded the cogent grounds in this behalf. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless & until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, so, the impugned order (Annexure P8) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons , as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is hereby dismissed as such.
Sd/-
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 14.1.2014 AS Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.17 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh