Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Santosh Mohindroo Wife Of Sh. ... vs Smt. Kamlesh Alias Meena Wife Of Late ... on 15 January, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No.223 of 2013(O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.223 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.01.2013
Smt. Santosh Mohindroo wife of Sh. Ramesh Kumar
Mohindroo, resident of Mohalla Saraswati Vihar, Dera Bassi,
Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Kamlesh alias Meena wife of Late Balraj Talwar son of Sh.
Raghbir Parkash resident of Mohalla Saraswati Vihar, Dera
Bassi, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. Ravi K. Mattoo, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The revision is against the order rejecting a prayer for additional evidence after the plaintiff had tendered his evidence and closed his side. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to establish his title on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed by the defendant in her capacity of his power of attorney. The defence was that the sale deed was not true and the power of attorney was also not genuine. The burden of proof was wholly on the plaintiff to establish the contentions that he was pleading for. After the plaintiff side was closed and CR No.223 of 2013(O&M) [2] the defendant had given evidence, the plaintiff has sought for additional evidence to summon some officials from the registration department and some records relating to electricity connection and also certain records of Municipal Corporation as well. The Court has rejected the contention finding that there was no justification for such a prayer, when the plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to produce evidence in respect of matters on which the burden of proof was only on the plaintiff.
2. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution, for, the impugned order was passed at the interlocutory stage.
3. The civil revision is dismissed.
4. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the correctness of the order if at all, the suit ultimately were to be decided against him, as a ground of appeal.
15th January, 2013 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE