Present: Mr. Vivek Suri vs Mr. Sanjiv Gupta on 20 January, 2009

Civil Revision No. 5390 of 2008                             -1-

                                 *****


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH


                           Civil Revision No. 5390 of 2008
                           Date of decision: 20.01.2009.


Raja Ram                                                    ...Petiitioner
                                    Versus

Subhash Chander                                        ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.


Present:        Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

                Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

                                 *****

S.D.ANAND, J.

The relevant cause was fixed for rebuttal evidence and

arguments when the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application to obtain the

leave of the Court to adduce additional evidence and to thereby prove that

the parties had arrived at a compromise on 5.5.2008 during the pendency

of the Trial.

The application was contested by the defendant-respondent by

denying the factum of the compromise and by averring that application had

been filed only with a view to delay the proceedings of the case.

In support of the plea for allowance of the petition, learned

counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner invites attention of the Court to the fact

that the plaintiff-petitioner had performed his part of the compromise;

whereas defendant-respondent had unjustly contested the factum thereof

in the counter filed to the plea for additional evidence.
Civil Revision No. 5390 of 2008 -2-

*****

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to contest

the fact that the averment with regard to the factum of impugned

compromise does not find mention in the pleadings. How exactly, then,

can additional evidence be allowed to be adduced is beyond logical

comprehension.

The trial of a civil suit proceeds on the basis of pleadings of the

parties. By the very nature of things, the parties adduce evidence in

support of their respective pleas at the trial. Those pleas are evident from

the issues which are framed on the pleadings of the parties by the Court.

The Court would not allow a party to adduce evidence which is not relate-

able to the pleadings of that party or is beyond the scope of the pleadings

made by that party. In that view of things, the petition-plaintiff cannot

validly obtain invalidation of the impugned order. The learned Trial Court

appropriately declined to allow additional evidence for want of there being

pleading to that effect.

Dismissed.

The stay order dated 1.10.2008 shall stand vacated. The

vacation of stay order shall be communicated to the Court concerned

forthwith.

January 20, 2009                                      (S.D.Anand)
Pka                                                      Judge