Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonia Dhillon & Anr vs Tarlochan Singh & Ors on 11 November, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
Civil Revision No.7472 of 2014 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7472 of 2014
Date of decision: 11.11.2014
Sonia Dhillon and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Tarlochan Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Narinder Kumar Vadehra, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral)
1. Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 15.9.2014 (Annexure P/10) whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana dismissed the application for additional evidence moved by the petitioners who are defendants no.6 and 7 and were impleaded vide order dated 16.7.2012 being subsequent purchasers.
2. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that vide application for additional evidence, petitioners wanted to produce certified copies of the FIR bearing Nos.129, 147 and 149 registered at Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana on 29.8.2008, 27.9.2008 and 30.9.2008 respectively along with certified copy of order dated 5.6.2009 passed by the SDM while exercising the powers of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ludhiana and the written statement filed in the civil suit interse the parties alongwith Civil Appeal and the reply filed which is pending in the Court of Ms. Shilpa, CJ (JD), Ludhiana in additional evidence.
3. The trial Court has taken into account the fact that the applicants have taken number of opportunities to produce evidence and their evidence was closed on 3.7.2014. The petitioners had started their evidence on 5.4.2013 and PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7472 of 2014 -2- **** taken 40 opportunities. It has been noticed that the said documents were very well within the knowledge of the applicants at the time of leading evidence. The copies of the FIRs were already on record and they had been put by the plaintiffs in the cross examination of the defendants. The present application had been filed to delay the case and the impugned order was passed rejecting the application for additional evidence.
4. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that respondents Tarlochan Singh and Gurpreet Singh being sons of Roor Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 20.5.1995 which was executed by defendant no.1-Tirath Kaur in favour of Roor Singh, deceased father of the plaintiffs. It has been alleged that total sale consideration of ` 1,25,000/- have been paid by Roor Singh to defendant no.1 and he had been put in possession of the land which is subject matter of agreement to sell. Roor Singh had died on 29.10.2001 and the plaintiffs had come into possession of the land in respect of agreement to sell at that point of time. The sale deed dated 7.2.2006 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 and further sale deed dated 20.6.2006 in favour of defendant no.4 were also challenged in the said suit.
5. As noticed above, the applicants have purchased the property during pendency of the civil suit on 10.7.2008 and thereafter filed an application for being impleaded as party being proper and necessary party. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and they were given liberty to join the proceedings at the stage representing the defendants from whom they had purchased the property in question. The relevant observations read as under:-
"Accordingly, in view of the settled law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicants being strangers to the agreement cannot be impleaded as party however they are arrayed as defendants under PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and they can join the proceedings at this of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7472 of 2014 -3- **** stage representing the defendants from whom they have purchased the suit property. The application stands allowed partly.
Case is adjourned to 3.8.2012 for evidence of the plaintiff."
6. In the meantime, the plaintiffs concluded their evidence and the applicants/petitioners started their evidence on 5.4.2013. The evidence was closed vide order dated 3.7.2014 and the application for additional evidence for production of the documents noticed above came to be filed on 24.7.2014. The plea taken was that the documents are very essential and necessary for the proper adjudication between the parties. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs pleading that it had been filed only to delay the proceedings and the documents were already well within their knowledge and 40 opportunities have been granted. It had been pleaded that the documents which are sought to be produced are not necessary for the proper adjudication of the case and the suit was only for specific performance of the agreement and the applicants were not bonafide purchasers and they are property grabbers. Defendants no.2 to 4 had already been proceeded against exparte and there was no pleadings of the applicants and the evidence produced could not be read into evidence. Therefore, question of additional evidence does not arise.
7. As noticed above, the trial Court has declined the application on the ground of lack of due diligence.
8. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the copies of FIRs are already on record and only certified copies thereof have to be placed on record. He has relied upon Prem Lata Vs. Ram Sarup 2006(1) PLR 477, Pawan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar and others 2007(1) PLR 761, Hans Raj Vs. Surinder Kaur and others 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 377, Rajesh Kumar Vs. Mangat Rai and others 2012(2) PLR 334, Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. M/s Markanda Sugar Traders and another 2012(4) Civil Court Cases 851 and PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7472 of 2014 -4- **** Banwari Lal and others Vs. Saraswati and others 2014 (2) PLR 486.
9. It is settled principle that for requesting Court to exercise power of allowing additional evidence, the petitioners firstly had to satisfy that the material which is sought to be placed on record was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at the time of their evidence. The indulgence which can be granted to the petitioners was only where there had to be due diligence. The Apex Court has limited the scope of additional evidence by holding that before the Court allows any such application for additional evidence, two factors have to be taken into consideration. One is the real controversy in the suit and second aspect is that the party should have demonstrate that why the documents could not be produced when the evidence was being led. In the present case, apart from the prayer, the averment was that the documents are necessary for the proper decision of the case. Nothing has been pointed out that how the said documents are necessary so the plaintiffs could reply to the said ground. Counsel's argument that FIRs would show that possession was not with the plaintiffs and there was concealment of facts regarding handing over of possession is without any basis as the dispute as noticed above is whether an agreement was entered into and whether the parties are entitled for the specific performance which the Court is to decide on merits on the basis of evidence already on record. In case the Courts finds that the agreement was entered into, necessary relief can be modified accordingly. In such circumstances, the judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioners that additional evidence can be allowed at any stage is not relevant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since admittedly the FIRs which are already on record were well within the knowledge of the applicants. The applicants were also subsequent purchasers of the property and therefore, have not filed any written statement and are only entitled to proceed with the case from where the other PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA 2014.11.19 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity defendants have left to protect their interests. Reference can be safely made to of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Civil Revision No.7472 of 2014 -5- **** the judgment of the Apex Court in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. and others (2013) 5 SCC 397 In such circumstances, the order which has been passed by the trial Court declining the application for additional evidence at the fag end of the trial when the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence is very justified.
9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.
11.11.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
Pka JUDGE
PRADEEP KUMAR ARORA
2014.11.19 10:41
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh