Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Kumar Jain vs Yudhvir Singh And Others on 29 January, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No. 628 of 2014 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CR No. 628 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.01.2014
Kuldeep Kumar Jain ......Petitioner
Versus
Yudhvir Singh and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Amit Jain,Advocate for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 8.1.2014 (Annexure P4) whereby an application moved by the petitioner-defendant No.4 for permission to lead additional evidence, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the two sale deeds and one release deed, now, sought to be proved on record were very necessary for the just decision of the case.
By way of additional evidence, the petitioner wanted to prove that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had colluded with each other to defeat the right of the petitioner, who was a bona fide purchaser.
Learned trial Court, while dismissing the application, on 8.1.2014 (Annexure P4) has observed as under:-
"I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. Raj Kumari Defendant/applicant filed this application for permission to lead 2014.02.03 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 628 of 2014 (O&M) 2 additional evidence on the ground that the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence were not in his knowledge and he could not produce the same even after due diligence. However, I find no merit in this submission because it is the case of applicant that he came to know about these documents while preparing final arguments. Ex.D1 is sale deed executed in his favour wherein recital of release deed has been given. Ex.D1 was executed and got registered by Smt.Savitri Devi in favour of defendant/applicant Kuldeep Kumar. Thus, release deed was in knowledge of applicant even prior to filing of the present suit. So far two sale deeds are concerned, learned counsel for defendant/applicant could not explain as to how he came to know about these two sale deeds while preparing for arguments. Rather it shows that defendant- applicant had not excused due diligence. Had he been diligent, he should have produced these sale deeds while leading his evidence. In this circumstances, it cannot be said that the release deed bearing vasika No.4601 dated sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was not in the knowledge of defendant/applicant and he could not produce remaining two documents even after due diligence.
Further, it is evident from application that release deed was executed in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi who executed sale deed in favour of defendant-applicant. Two sale deeds were executed between plaintiff and defendant, in respect of Raj Kumari land different from suit land. Learned counsel appearing for 2014.02.03 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 628 of 2014 (O&M) 3 defendant-applicant could not explain as to how these documents are relevant to resolve the controversy involved in the present suit."
The reasons given by the trial Court, while dismissing the application for permission to lead additional evidence filed by the petitioner, are sound reasons. The sale deeds/release deed, now, sought to be produced on record relate to the year 2003. There is no explanation as to why the said documents were not proved on record by the petitioner while leading his evidence. Now, the case is listed before the trail Court for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
( Sabina ) Judge January 29,2014 arya Raj Kumari 2014.02.03 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document