Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU
Omwati – Appellant
Versus
Kamla – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and procedural history of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT :
MANDEEP PANNU J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 (Annexure P- 11) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application moved by contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent Nos. 1 and 2’) for exclusion of the affidavits filed by petitioners/proforma defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioners’) in their examination-in-chief was allowed.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective, it would be apposite to notice the written statement filed by petitioners, which is placed on record as Annexure P-4. Perusal of the same reveals that petitioners have admitted the claim of the plaintiff- Satyajeet (proforma/respondent no.3- herein) except for denying that they are colluding with defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In the end, they have prayed that pleading is correct and admitted and that they have no objection in case the present case is decreed as prayed for. Since the petitioners had admitted the c
Consenting defendants must present evidence before contesting defendants to ensure procedural fairness and avoid strategic advantages.
The plaintiff-respondent has the right to lead evidence in affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her.
Once a proforma defendant admits the case of the plaintiff and supports it, they essentially claim the same relief as the plaintiff, and should have filed an application before the contesting defenda....
The plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right on an issue the onus of which is on the defendant-respondent, and must reserve the right to do so.
The court affirmed that defendants with a common defense can provide evidence sequentially without violating procedural rules, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity.
Before leading additional evidence, the party must satisfy the court that the proposed evidence was not within its knowledge or could not have been led earlier despite due diligence.
A plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right on an issue the onus of which is on a defendant, and must reserve the right to do so when his evidence is closed.
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
