Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Surinder Kumar vs Prem Lata And Ors. on 7 August, 1997
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there may be some
lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel in not leading the evidence at the
Civil Revision No. 300 of 2010 [2]
appropriate stage, which is now sought to be led. In fact, specific plea has been
raised by the petitioner in the written statement filed to the effect that in the earlier
suit filed by one Gian Singh against the petitioner regarding the same property, the
matter was compromised before this Court. In those proceedings, respondent No.
1-plaintiff, who is related to Gian Singh, had filed her affidavit admitting that the
land belonged to Gian Singh, which is relevant for the purpose of decision of the
lis between the parties. Further his plea regarding the petitioner-defendant being
in possession of the property was found by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil),
Kurukshetra during inspection of the site, which is also part of the judicial
proceedings in the earlier suit between Gian Singh and the petitioner as Ex. P4.
Referring to these two documents, which are sought to be produced, it was
submitted that both the documents being part of the judicial record, there is no
possibility of the same being tampered with or creation subsequently. However,
the production thereof will clinch the issue in favour of the petitioner. Even if
there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel, that should not
come in the way of doing substantial justice, as the law of procedure is
subservient to justice. On that account, the other party can very well be
compensated with costs. Reliance was placed upon Surinder Kumar v. Prem Lata,
1997(3) PLR 291; Raju Sharma v. Pardeep Kumar, 1999(1) PLR 612; Mam Raj
v. Sabiri Devi, 2000(1) PLR 517 and Labh Kaur v. Ram Asra, 2000(2) PLR 311.
Mam Raj vs Smt. Sabiri Devi And Ors. on 19 March, 1998
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there may be some
lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel in not leading the evidence at the
Civil Revision No. 300 of 2010 [2]
appropriate stage, which is now sought to be led. In fact, specific plea has been
raised by the petitioner in the written statement filed to the effect that in the earlier
suit filed by one Gian Singh against the petitioner regarding the same property, the
matter was compromised before this Court. In those proceedings, respondent No.
1-plaintiff, who is related to Gian Singh, had filed her affidavit admitting that the
land belonged to Gian Singh, which is relevant for the purpose of decision of the
lis between the parties. Further his plea regarding the petitioner-defendant being
in possession of the property was found by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil),
Kurukshetra during inspection of the site, which is also part of the judicial
proceedings in the earlier suit between Gian Singh and the petitioner as Ex. P4.
Referring to these two documents, which are sought to be produced, it was
submitted that both the documents being part of the judicial record, there is no
possibility of the same being tampered with or creation subsequently. However,
the production thereof will clinch the issue in favour of the petitioner. Even if
there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel, that should not
come in the way of doing substantial justice, as the law of procedure is
subservient to justice. On that account, the other party can very well be
compensated with costs. Reliance was placed upon Surinder Kumar v. Prem Lata,
1997(3) PLR 291; Raju Sharma v. Pardeep Kumar, 1999(1) PLR 612; Mam Raj
v. Sabiri Devi, 2000(1) PLR 517 and Labh Kaur v. Ram Asra, 2000(2) PLR 311.
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association,
Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530 held that in spite of
deletion of provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the CPC by amending Act of
2002, the right to produce evidence at later stage by way of additional evidence is
Civil Revision No. 300 of 2010 [4]
not taken away as the court has always inherent power to exercise the jurisdiction
for advancement of justice under Section 151 of the CPC.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Raju Sharma vs Pardeep Kumar And Ors. on 10 February, 1999
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there may be some
lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel in not leading the evidence at the
Civil Revision No. 300 of 2010 [2]
appropriate stage, which is now sought to be led. In fact, specific plea has been
raised by the petitioner in the written statement filed to the effect that in the earlier
suit filed by one Gian Singh against the petitioner regarding the same property, the
matter was compromised before this Court. In those proceedings, respondent No.
1-plaintiff, who is related to Gian Singh, had filed her affidavit admitting that the
land belonged to Gian Singh, which is relevant for the purpose of decision of the
lis between the parties. Further his plea regarding the petitioner-defendant being
in possession of the property was found by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil),
Kurukshetra during inspection of the site, which is also part of the judicial
proceedings in the earlier suit between Gian Singh and the petitioner as Ex. P4.
Referring to these two documents, which are sought to be produced, it was
submitted that both the documents being part of the judicial record, there is no
possibility of the same being tampered with or creation subsequently. However,
the production thereof will clinch the issue in favour of the petitioner. Even if
there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel, that should not
come in the way of doing substantial justice, as the law of procedure is
subservient to justice. On that account, the other party can very well be
compensated with costs. Reliance was placed upon Surinder Kumar v. Prem Lata,
1997(3) PLR 291; Raju Sharma v. Pardeep Kumar, 1999(1) PLR 612; Mam Raj
v. Sabiri Devi, 2000(1) PLR 517 and Labh Kaur v. Ram Asra, 2000(2) PLR 311.
Smt. Labh Kaur vs Ram Asra And Anr. on 23 September, 1999
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there may be some
lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel in not leading the evidence at the
Civil Revision No. 300 of 2010 [2]
appropriate stage, which is now sought to be led. In fact, specific plea has been
raised by the petitioner in the written statement filed to the effect that in the earlier
suit filed by one Gian Singh against the petitioner regarding the same property, the
matter was compromised before this Court. In those proceedings, respondent No.
1-plaintiff, who is related to Gian Singh, had filed her affidavit admitting that the
land belonged to Gian Singh, which is relevant for the purpose of decision of the
lis between the parties. Further his plea regarding the petitioner-defendant being
in possession of the property was found by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil),
Kurukshetra during inspection of the site, which is also part of the judicial
proceedings in the earlier suit between Gian Singh and the petitioner as Ex. P4.
Referring to these two documents, which are sought to be produced, it was
submitted that both the documents being part of the judicial record, there is no
possibility of the same being tampered with or creation subsequently. However,
the production thereof will clinch the issue in favour of the petitioner. Even if
there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel, that should not
come in the way of doing substantial justice, as the law of procedure is
subservient to justice. On that account, the other party can very well be
compensated with costs. Reliance was placed upon Surinder Kumar v. Prem Lata,
1997(3) PLR 291; Raju Sharma v. Pardeep Kumar, 1999(1) PLR 612; Mam Raj
v. Sabiri Devi, 2000(1) PLR 517 and Labh Kaur v. Ram Asra, 2000(2) PLR 311.
Inder Singh vs Smt. Sandokhi Devi on 7 September, 2006
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff
submitted that the suit in the present case was filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff
on 3.1.2002, which is now fixed for arguments on 8.3.2010. When the application
was filed, it was listed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff and arguments. It is
admitted case of the petitioner that the documents, which are sought to be
produced, were within his knowledge, as even a reference thereto was made in the
written statement filed, but still those were not produced in evidence, may be for
the reason that counsel did not find them to be relevant. At this stage, the petitioner
should not be permitted to produce the same in additional evidence, merely to fill
in the lacuna in the evidence already led. Both these documents are not per se
admissible in evidence and even if they are produced on record, the same will not
lead the case of the petitioner any further, as both the documents were not even put
to respondent No. 1-plaintiff when she appeared in the witness box. These are the
documents, which were part of an earlier litigation in which respondent No. 1-
plaintiff was not a party. In fact Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC was deleted only to
avoid such situations and in the facts of the case, the petitioner had not been able
to make out any case for permitting him to lead additional evidence. Reliance was
Civil Revision No. 300 of 2010 [3]
placed upon Satnam Singh v. Devinder Kaur, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 639; Inder
Singh v. Smt. Sandokhi Devi, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 729 and Pawan Kumar v. Raj
Kumar and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 385.
1