Harbans Lal vs Narender Kumar on 26 November, 2009

Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2008 (O&M)                           1



      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                        Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2008 (O&M)
                        Date of decision: 26.11.2009


Harbans Lal

                                                     ......petitioner

                        Versus



Narender Kumar
                                                   .......Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA


Present:   Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate.
           for the petitioner.

           Mr.R.S.Mittal, Sr.Advocate,
           with Mr.Atul Gaur, Advocate,
           for the respondent.

                 ****


SABINA, J.

Plaintiff Narender Kumar filed a suit for possession by

way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.1.2003.

During the pendency of the suit, when the case was listed for rebuttal

evidence and arguments, petitioner-defendant moved an application

for permission to lead additional evidence. Vide the impugned order

dated 17.1.2008 the said application was dismissed. Hence, the
Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2008 (O&M) 2

present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India by the defendant-petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner only wanted to produce on record the certified copy of

order dated 31.5.2003, vide which the suit filed by Manohar Lal

against the petitioner was got dismissed as withdrawn. The said

order could not be tendered in evidence by the counsel for the

petitioner due to inadvertence.

Learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other

hand, has submitted that the application had been rightly dismissed

as the order now sought to be produced on record had no relevance

with the case.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the

opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed.

Admittedly, the petitioner was given sufficient

opportunities to lead his evidence. However, the petitioner failed to

produce the order dated 31.5.2003 on record. The order sought to

be proved on record had been passed in the course of judicial

proceedings in Civil Suit No.57-C of 18.3.2003 in case titled Manohar

Lal vs. Harbans Lal. The petitioner simply wants to tender the order

by way of additional evidence. Since the said order had not been

placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner due to

inadvertence, the same was liable to be allowed to be tendered in

evidence by the petitioner by way of additional evidence.
Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2008 (O&M) 3

The ends of justice requires that the order dated

31.5.2003 be proved on record so that the lis between the parties

can be disposed of on merits. In case it is found by the trial Court,

after hearing the arguments of the parties, that the order has no

relevance with the matter in dispute, the same may not be relied

upon by the learned trial Court but at this stage, it is premature to

decide as to whether the order dated 31.5.2003 is relevant with

regard to the matter in dispute or not. Neither the rules of procedure

nor technicalities of law can stand in the way of justice. The

paramount duty of the Court is to do justice between the parties.

Even law bends before justice.

Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The

impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for

permission to lead additional evidence filed by the petitioner stands

allowed.

(SABINA)
JUDGE

November 26, 2009
anita