Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh & Anr vs Ranjit Kaur Gandhok & Ors on 19 September, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6423 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19th September, 2014
Inderjit Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Ranjit Kaur Gandhok and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioners Inderjit Singh and Sarbjit Singh have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against respondents Ranjit Kaur etc. for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2014, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, whereby application for leading additional evidence by way of producing on record the certified copies of the documents relating to a criminal case connected with the dispute in the civil suit, has been dismissed.
Plaintiff Mukhbain Singh filed the suit against defendants Inderjit Singh etc. Petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 (hereinreferred as 'defendant Nos.1 and 2') filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence by way of producing certified copy of statement of Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate Rajpura dated 25.07.2014 and certified copy of statement of Rattan Lal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. MAMTA MALHOTRA 2014.09.26 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6423 of 2014 (O&M) [2] The said application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2014.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that first of all the copy of statement of Rattan Lal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be produced in the civil suit as it can be used only for the purpose of that criminal case in which during investigation the said statement has been recorded. It is specifically written in Section 162 Cr.P.C. that the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be used for any other purpose. Otherwise also, the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is neither a substantial nor a corroborative piece of evidence. Secondly, the certified copy of the statement of Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate, Rajpura dated 25.07.2014 recorded in the criminal case is also not relevant for any purpose. As per record, Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate has already been examined as a witness in this case and he has also been duly cross-examined by the defendants. The certified copy of statement of Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate, Rajpura dated 25.07.2014 is in no way relevant for the purpose of just decision of this case. This document is not per se admissible. Secondly, at the most, this statement can be used for confrontation purpose. Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate, has already been examined and cross-examined. Furthermore, the statement of Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate Rajpura, dated 25.07.2014, is also MAMTA MALHOTRA 2014.09.26 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.6423 of 2014 (O&M) [3] subsequent statement and the witness cannot be confronted with the subsequent statement. Otherwise also, in the additional evidence, defendants are not asking for summoning of Sh.H.S.Saini Advocate to confront him with this statement. Therefore, from the above, I find that both the documents are not relevant for the just decision of this case. The case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments and as, discussed above, these documents are neither admissible in evidence nor relevant for the just decision of this case. As such, the impugned order dated 06.09.2014, passed by the learned trial Court is correct and as per law and it does not require any interference by this Court and the same is upheld.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition the same is dismissed.
19thSeptember, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH)
mamta JUDGE
MAMTA MALHOTRA
2014.09.26 16:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh