Back
KARAMJIT SINGH
Prem Singh – Appellant
Versus
Neki Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Karamjit Singh, J.
Present revision petition has been filed by petitioner-plaintiff No.1 against order dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karnal whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.11.1984 which was executed by Jaimal Singh in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No.17 for total sale consideration of Rs. 1,27,625/-.
3. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 16, they being legal heirs of Jaimal Singh. Learned trial Court framed issues and thereafter, both the parties adduced evidence. When the suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, otherwise, for final arguments, the plaintiffs filed an application for additional evidence to get compared disputed thumb impression of Jaimal Singh on agreement to sell dated 7.11.1984 with his thumb impression appearing on sale deed dated 5.6.1982 from Document and Finger Print Expert and then to examine the said expert and further to tender certified copy of judgment
The court emphasizes that additional evidence can only be admitted if justified; belated applications to cover previous omissions are generally not permitted unless no objection is raised regarding a....
Parties are entitled to present evidence in rebuttal, especially when prior claims by opposing parties shift the burden of proof, emphasizing that cases should be concluded on substantive merits rath....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to allow additional evidence for thumb impression comparison, emphasizing the necessity of expert opinion in determining the authenticity of documents in s....
The right to lead evidence in rebuttal is limited by the onus of proof on the party seeking to lead such evidence, and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code must be followed as they are, regardl....
The onus to prove the validity of the agreement lies with the defendant, and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal at a later stage.
The plaintiff must be granted an opportunity to lead additional evidence to rebut a new defense of signature denial raised by the defendant during cross-examination.
Court ruled that additional evidence should not be permitted at rebuttal if it is merely an effort to fill gaps in prior evidence without demonstrated diligence.
Additional evidence at rebuttal must clarify issues, not cover previous omissions; courts must ensure applications are not used to delay proceedings.
The court ruled that a trial court must provide an opportunity for additional evidence when procedural errors deny a plaintiff a fair hearing, emphasizing the case's prolonged duration warrants exped....
The timing of applications and the consistency of parties' stances are crucial factors in determining the admissibility of evidence and the court's decision.
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
