Back
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Sajjan Singh Bhangoo – Appellant
Versus
Piara Singh Since – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition assails the order dated 16.01.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar vide which the application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence was dismissed.
2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of the suit properties in view of the Will dated 22.10.2006 having been executed by one Rupinder Singh. A further declaration was sought that judgment and decree dated 01.09.2008 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar was illegal and that Will dated 09.10.2006 being relied upon by the present petitioner-defendant No.1 was a forged and fabricated document.
3. The suit was opposed by the defendants. The petitioner-defendant No.1 filed a written statement (Annexure P-1) in which a stand was taken that no Will dated 22.10.2006 had been executed by Rupinder Singh as he was not in India on the said date. Reliance was placed upon Will dated 09.10.2006 (mentioned as 06.10.2006 in the revision petition) stated to have been e
A party's failure to pay ordered costs results in the mandatory dismissal of their defense, affirming the strict adherence to procedural compliance under the Civil Procedure Code.
Non-payment of costs and non-production of documents relied upon in the written statement can lead to the striking off of the defence as per the provisions of Section 35-B CPC and Order 8 Rule 1 A CP....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the enabling power of the Appellate Court to allow additional evidence for any substantial cause and the need for such evidence to pronounce jud....
The court affirmed that allowing additional evidence is within the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the CPC, provided it serves the ends of justice and is not actuated by malafide in....
The court upheld the validity of the will dated 26-7-1995, dismissing the subsequent will as unproven and suspicious, while also ruling the counter claim as barred by limitation.
The court emphasized that additional evidence may only be permitted under exceptional circumstances, not as a routine, and evaluated the impact of delay on justice delivery.
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
