Back
AMARJOT BHATTI
Gurbhag Singh – Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Singh – Respondent
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. The petitioner-Gurbhag Singh has filed the present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali with further direction to the trial Court to proceed in the matter as per law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he had filed application to exclude affidavit and evidence of PW1-Inderjit Singh, affidavit and evidence of PW4, evidence of PW3 Magwinder Singh and the documents exhibited as PW6/A to PW6/F in the evidence of Kanwar Mubarak Singh. It is pointed out that Inderjit Singh PW1 filed his affidavit dated 28.07.2011 (Ex.PW2/A) tendered on 13.12.2013. He again placed on record another affidavit dated 20.02.2014 and he again tendered another affidavit dated 27.10.2014 (Ex.PW4/A) on 20.10.2014. The plaintiff could not tender affidavit of Inderjit Singh thrice. His examination-in-chief was recorded on 13.12.2013 and he was not cross-examined. He cannot be examined-in-chief again as PW2 and his affidavit Ex.PW4/A cannot be tendered. When the first affidavit tendered by Inderjit Singh PW1, he was not examined now
The main legal point established in the judgment is that procedural lapses and non-compliance with the provisions of CPC may not warrant exclusion of evidence if the party is not prejudiced, and the ....
A witness can be permitted to state on oath about an error crept in the affidavit already filed and allow him to make his own statement about the said fact, and proceed thereafter for cross-examinati....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence produced by the parties cannot be considered in the absence of pleading, and parties should not be permitted to travel beyond their p....
The main legal point established is that the procedural rules governing witness examination, specifically Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. and Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, do not p....
The main legal point established is that permitting a new plaintiff to file an affidavit at a late stage of the trial, after the original plaintiff had already done so, would amount to a denovo trial....
The court affirmed that defendants with a common defense can provide evidence sequentially without violating procedural rules, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
