Back
2010 Supreme(HP) 646
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH, J.
KULDIP SAKLANI
Petitioner
VERSUS
CHUNI LAL & OTHERS
Respondents
CMPMO No. 557 of 2009
Decided on 5-4-2010.
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.K. Malhotra, Advocate. For the Respondents:Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
The relevance and necessity of additional evidence must be demonstrated to assist in determining the real controversy between the parties.
Headnote:
Additional Evidence - Civil Procedure - Section 151 CPC - CS No.1 of 2009 - Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid, Mutation No.318, Jamabandi 1970-71, 1997-98, Electricity Meters - The court discussed the parameters for leading additional evidence, emphasizing that it must assist in determining the real controversy between the parties. The relevance and necessity of the additional evidence were questioned, and it was held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the documents would assist the court in deciding the dispute, especially in light of previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for recovery of rent against the petitioner, who contested on the grounds of previous rent payment and possession by another party. The petitioner sought to lead additional evidence to prove ownership and possession of the disputed shop by another individual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how the additional evidence would assist in deciding the dispute, especially in light of previous judgments.
Issues: Contest of rent recovery suit, rejection of application for additional evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that additional evidence must assist in determining the real controversy between the parties, and the relevance and necessity of the evidence must be demonstrated by the party seeking to introduce it.
Final Decision: The court upheld the dismissal of the application for additional evidence.
Kuldip Singh, J.-The defendant No,.1 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9.7.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge ( Sr. Division), Mandi in CMA No.64 /09 in C.S. No.34/06, Chunil Lal v. Kuldeep Saklani.
2. The facts in brief are that respondents No.1 and 2 have instituted a suit on 26.4.2006 for recovery of rent Rs.1,08,000/- at the rate of Rs.3000/- P.M. against petitioner and proforma respondent No.3. The petitioner has contested the suit on the grounds that shop in dispute was let out by one Paras Ram, real brother of Puran Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 and 2, as he was co-owner of the shop in dispute. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has vacated the premises in dispute in August, 2003 and Paras Ram, who inducted the petitioner as tenant has received the entire rent upto August, 2003. The shop in dispute is in possession of Paras Ram and as such petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the rent again on account of dispute between two brothers.
3. Paras Ram real brother of father of respondents No.1,2 had applied for impleading him as party in the ejectment suit on the ground that he inducted the petitioner as tenant and had received rent, but his application for amendment was rejected. It has been alleged that while appearing as witness in the ejectment suit Paras Ram has admitted that after August, 2003 he is in possession of the shop in dispute which fell to his share after partition between him and his brother Puran Chand.
4. Paras Ram had filed CS No.1 of 2009 for declaration against respondents No.1,2 and others in which petitioner and proforma respondent have been made parties. In the said suit, Paras Ram had taken the stand that he is owner of the shop in dispute which was in his possession through various tenants, from time to time and revenue entries to the contrary are not correct. This fact came to the notice of petitioner when he received the summons of CS No.1 of 2009 pending before Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mandi. Thereafter the petitioner had procured the copies of revenue record. The petitioner had filed an application dated 22.5.2009 for additional evidence for proving copy of plaint in CS No.1 of 2009, Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid, copy of mutation No.318, copy of jamabandi for the year 1970-71, copy of jamabandi for the year 1997-98, details of electricity meters. This application was opposed by respondents No.1 & 2. The learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application on 9.7.2009.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Civil Judge has erred in dismissing the application for additional evidence. The learned Court below has committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the application. The documents which petitioner intends to prove by way of additional evidence are mostly public documents. The said documents otherwise cannot be manufactured by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
6. The learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application on the ground of decision in previous litigation. In the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has observed that in the previous litigation the plaintiffs were held to be landlord of the suit premises and defendant No.1 as tenant under them vide judgment dated 1.4.2005, Kuldeep Saklani filed appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 5.3.2007. Thereafter Kuldeep Saklani preferred second appeal which was also dismissed on 8.4.2008.
7. The parameters for leading additional evidence are well known. The additional evidence must assist the Court in determining real controversy between the parties. The evidence of the petitioner was closed on 8.4.1999 and the case was fixed for arguments by the learned trial Court on 29.4.2009, 14.5.2009 but on both dates arguments could not be heard. On 22.5.2009 the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC for additio
