Randhir Singh & Others vs Jai Bhagwan And Others on 12 December, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Randhir Singh & Others vs Jai Bhagwan And Others on 12 December, 2011

Bench: A.N. Jindal

Civil Revision No. 7415 of 2011                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH.


                              Civil Revision No. 7415 of 2011
                              Date of decision:- 12.12.2011


Randhir Singh & others

                                               ....Petitioners

           Vs.

Jai Bhagwan and others

                                               ....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
                       ******
Present:- Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate,
          for the petitioners.


A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)

This petition assails the order dated 29.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, partly allowing the application filed by the defendants- petitioners (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioners') for leading additional evidence.

The application for examining Sh. Mahabir Parshad, Advocate, Notary Public, to prove the second agreement, which the petitioner had executed with Sher Singh, was declined with the following observations:-

"In this way, from aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, it is crystal clear that plea taken by the applicants/defendants in the present application with regard to additional evidence is beyond pleadings and is liable to be ignored, as it was so held in 1993 (1) LJR 678 by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. Had the plea taken by the applicant/defendant been true and believable, then Civil Revision No. 7415 of 2011 2 certainly, there was no occasion for the applicant/defendant for not taking the defence in the written statement at relevant point of time. Whereas, the applicant/defendant has not shown any plausible reason for not taking this defence in the written statement nor during the course of trial and as such, it is evident on file that trial of the case has already been concluded and present application was filed when the case was fixed for tendering of documents only on behalf of defendants after conclusion of entire evidence."

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the observations made by the trial Court in this regard are not correct. He has already set up this plea in his written statement. In this regard, he has referred para No.10 of the written statement, which is reproduced as under:-

"10. That the suit of the plaintiffs is false and frivolous to the very knowledge of the plaintiffs. It is the plaintiffs, who caused great loss to the defendants because after selling the above said land, the answering defendants want to purchase another agricultural land, but due to the violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell on the part of the plaintiffs and fraud committed by the plaintiffs, the defendants failed to purchase the land. Hence, special costs to the tune of Rs.50.00 Lacs are to be imposed upon the plaintiffs and suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed."

From bare reading of para No.10 of the written statement filed by the petitioners, it transpires that the counsel for the petitioners has tried to convey that the petitioners wanted to purchase another agricultural land with the sole consideration received by them. However, they have not specifically elaborated that Chatru-predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had already entered into an agreement with Sher Singh. As such, the impugned order is factually incorrect.

Civil Revision No. 7415 of 2011 3

It is also well settled by now that the parties need not plead each and every evidence and they are required to give broad spectrum of the case.

The other observation made by the Court is that it is a history-sheeted case and the defendants are delaying the adjudication of the matter. However, for that the plaintiffs could be compensated with costs.

As such, this petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are allowed to lead additional evidence, as prayed for in the application, subject to payment of ` 10,000/- as costs.

This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move to this Court for recalling this order.




                                               (A.N.JINDAL)
December 12, 2011                                 JUDGE
ajp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court