Gurmukh Singh vs Hardial Singh And Others on 8 October, 2009

C.R.No.4715 of 2009


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH


                            C.R.No.4715 of 2009.
                            Decided on: October 09, 2009.


Gurmukh Singh

                                                        .. Petitioner

                 VERSUS


Hardial Singh and others.

                                                     .. Respondents

                            ***

CORAM:           HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI


PRESENT          Mr.S.D.Sharma, Senior Advocate, with
                 Miss Bindu Goel, Advocate,
                 for the petitioner.

                 Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate,
                 for respondent Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7.

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

A perusal of order dated 06.08.2009, indicates that

by one consolidated order four applications have been decided i.e.,

(i) An application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC;

(ii) An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, for

impleading vendees Manjit Kaur and Baljinder Kaur;

(iii) An application under Order 14 Rule 1 CPC, for framing

additional issues; and

(iv) The application for production of additional evidence

… 1
C.R.No.4715 of 2009

under Section 151 CPC, to summon witnesses to lead additional

evidence to prove that in a suit titled ‘Maghar Singh Vs. Bhagwan

Kaur’, some other lady in place of Bhagwan Kaur was produced to

obtain the alleged fake decree. The trial Court has dismissed the

applications mentioned at Sr.Nos.(i), (ii), (iv), but allowed the

application mentioned at Sr.No.(iii) above, for framing additional

issue and framed additional Issue No.1A, to the effect whether the

judgment and decree dated 05.12.1995, passed by Miss Mandeep

Kaur Bhullar, Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana, is liable to be set

aside? OPP.

The trial Court observed that since both the parties

have already led their evidence very well knowing their pleadings

and the case pertains to year 1997, therefore, there was no need to

adjourn the case for giving opportunity to the parties to lead

evidence on the additional issue.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged

the validity of the impugned order.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find

any ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the trial Court

while deciding applications mentioned at Sr.Nos.(i), (ii) & (iii), but I

am of the opinion that after framing of specific issue pertaining to the

judgment and decree dated 05.12.1995, which is the root of

controversy between the parties, the adjudication on issue No.1 A,

will determine the main controversy between the parties. Besides

this, a perusal of the impugned order indicates that vide order dated

… 2
C.R.No.4715 of 2009

22.04.2009, while dismissing the application for additional evidence

filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, it was observed that the plaintiff will be

at liberty to file fresh application by giving detailed reasons for

relevancy of documents/evidence to be led by those witnesses in

rebuttal evidence and to summon those witnesses along with record

again for getting the thumb impressions of Smt. Bhagwan Kaur,

examined through some Handwriting Expert. Since the right of the

plaintiff-petitioner to produce the said evidence had been

safeguarded, the impugned order denying the said opportunity to the

petitioner even after framing of additional issue seems to be

improper and warrants interference by this Court exercising

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to

satisfy this Court as to how the re-examination of plaintiff is

necessary when he has already made deposition in context to the

judgment and decree dated 05.12.1995.

The request to re-examine the plaintiff is declined.

However, it appears necessary, in the interest of justice, to permit

the plaintiff-petitioner to produce the Handwriting Expert to compare

the established thumb impressions of Bhagwan Kaur with that on the

written statement and power of attorney filed in Civil Suit No.247 of

15.05.1995, titled ‘Maghar Singh Vs. Bhagwan Kaur’, which was

decided on 05.12.1995. Petitioner can also summon the concerned

Clerk of the Record Room along with file of case ‘Maghar Singh Vs.

Bhagwan Kaur’, in Civil Suit No.247 of 15.05.1995. No other

… 3
C.R.No.4715 of 2009

evidence will be permitted to be produced by the plaintiff. This

opportunity will be given to the plaintiff subject to payment of a sum

of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the defendant-respondent. It is directed that

plaintiff will produce the entire evidence within a period of 45 days

w.e.f., 24.10.2009. It is made clear that it will be open to the

defendant-respondent to produce any rebuttal evidence to the

evidence produced by the plaintiff-petitioner on issue No.1A.

The parties are directed to appear before the trial

Court on 24.10.2009. On said date, the plaintiff-petitioner will pay the

costs to the defendant-respondent and move an application for

summoning of the witnesses/record.

It is made clear that in case the cost is not paid, this

revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed.

The revision petition is partly allowed in above said

terms.

Copy of order be given dasti on payment of usual

charges.

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE
October 09, 2009.

rka

… 4