Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daulat Ram S/O Sh. Banka Ram vs Dharam Chand And Others on 29 May, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CR No. 3495 of 2013(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 3495 of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision May 29 , 2013
Daulat Ram s/o Sh. Banka Ram
....... Petitioner
Versus
Dharam Chand and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. P. S. Jammu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
K. Kannan, J.
1. The revision is against the order allowing the petition to be recalled for filing an earlier agreement dated 27.7.2009 which the first defendant claimed as a basis for sale in favour of the defendants No. 2 and 3. The plaintiff's contention was that the defendant's side had been closed and the documents could not be received. According to him, the document is a fabricated one and the defendant shall not be permitted to bring fabricated documents as additional evidence. Even the original document is not being produced. The defendant is only trying to produce secondary evidence of the alleged agreement. He also wants to rely on some paper cuttings which cannot be received.
2. The Court while ordering the application has not yet admitted the documents. It has merely provided for permission to the defendant to produce the documents. The objection regarding admissibility or the validity of the documents CR No. 3495 of 2013(O&M) 2 cannot be pre-judged by a Court at the time when an opportunity is given to a party to tender further evidence. If the application is belated, it could be taken as one of the grounds to suggest that the document itself was an after thought and fabrication and the plaintiff may use everything in his reserve to contend that the documents produced by him cannot be acted upon by the Court. He is also at liberty to elicit everything in the cross examination that would support his plea that the documents relied on by the defendant have no relevance. If they are relevant and if the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court to allow for evidence to be given on the basis of the documents which are still relevant, I do not find there is an error for interference in revision petition.
3. The order already passed is maintained and the revision is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 29, 2013 archana