Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Daya Chaudhary, J.
Nihala – Appellant
Vs.
Irshad – Respondent
C.R. No. 6174 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-02-2017
For the Appellant :P.R. Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent:Pankaj Jain, Advocate
Headnote:
Additional Evidence - Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - 1983 to 1988 - The judgment discusses the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows for the amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, subject to certain conditions. It also highlights the court's power to allow additional evidence for substantial cause and to facilitate the court in arriving at a just decision. The judgment references various legal principles and interpretations from previous cases, emphasizing the need to prioritize substantial justice over technicalities in procedural provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, as legal representatives of a deceased defendant, filed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of their application for leading additional evidence and summoning a village Patwari in a civil case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents sought to be adduced by the petitioners were per se admissible and could be tendered at any stage of the trial. It held that the petitioners should be given an effective opportunity to lead additional evidence, emphasizing the need to prioritize substantial justice over technical procedural objections.
Issues: The main issue was the dismissal of the petitioners' application for leading additional evidence and summoning the Patwari, and whether the documents sought to be adduced were necessary for a just decision of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the need to prioritize substantial justice over technical procedural objections, and the court's power to allow additional evidence for substantial cause.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned orders dismissing the petitioners' application for additional evidence and summoning the Patwari were set aside. The trial court was directed to give the petitioners an effective opportunity to lead additional evidence, subject to payment of costs to the opposing party.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
C.M. No. 19804-CII of 2016
This application is for placing on record judgment and decree dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure P-9).
Application is allowed. Annexure P-9 with the application is taken on record.
C.R. No. 6174 of 2016
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 29.7.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mewat whereby the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence and order dated 29.7.2016 (Annexure P-8) whereby the application for summoning the Patwari of village Balhad, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat along with original register of Khasra Girdawari for the period Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1988 have been dismissed.
2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of defendant-Nihala, who expired on 19.6.2014 during pendency of the proceedings, who were brought on record vide order dated 10.10.2014.
3. Petitioners are aggrieved with the order passed while dismissing their application for leading additional evidence in order to place on record certified copies of Jamabandis, which were stated to be received by them just before filing of the application for additional evidence. As per case of the petitioners, said jamabandis were obtained by the plaintiff himself in the year 2004 and the same were placed on record in the earlier suit titled as Irshad vs. Sheru etc and the same were not in the knowledge of the petitioners earlier. The entries in favour of the defendant came into the notice of the petitioners just 15 days before filing of the suit i.e. on 3.9.2010. However, the application moved by the petitioners to adduce additional evidence by contending the same to be necessary for just decision of the case to reach at a right decision was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Mewat vide order dated 29.7.2016, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
4. The said impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the documents which are sought to be adduced by the petitioners are the documents exhibited in an earlier suit, which was decided and as such, the same are per se admissible but still, application has been dismissed. Moreover, rebuttal evidence is yet to be led by the plaintiff and in case these documents are ordered to be tendered in evidence, the respondent-plaintiff can very well rebut the same, if required. Second application filed by the petitioner for summoning village Patwari for comparison of the original record of Khasra Girdawari as there was difference in the entries in Exhibits P-2 and D-9 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2016 which has also been challenged in the present revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that comparison of the documents requires deeper insight and this fact came to his notice when the case was being prepared. Learned counsel also submits that the additional evidence can be led at any stage of the trial.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a detailed order has been passed in both the applications that documents mentioned in the application are not essential for just decision of the case, especially when the petitioners have availed number of opportunities and their evidence was also closed by their counsel after leading evidence. All these documents were in the notice and knowledge of the petitioner defendants and the same could have been produced at the time of leading evidence in case the same were so necessary. Learned counsel for respondent also submits that the Patwari is sought to be summoned for comparison of two documents tendered by plaintiff himself. The petitioners were given more than eight opportunities to adduce their evidence during interregnum but no such objection was ever raised. Even the petitioners have failed to explain as to why such an objection was not raised by them when alleged documents were tendered by them.
7. Hea
