Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Baldev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Major Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sudeepti Sharma, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa, in Civil Suit No. 683 dated 02.12.2019 titled as 'Major Singh Vs. Baldev Singh', whereby, application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for additional evidence has been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the civil suit was at the stage of rebuttal evidence when the above application was filed. He further contends that the plaintiff has already availed numerous opportunities for his evidence, but failed to adduce evidence despite having knowledge of the documents much prior to the filing of the suit. He further contends that the application for additional evidence filed by the respondent/plaintiff has wrongly been allowed at belated stage.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the additional evidence is the certified copy of the record of the Court itself and is a part of the documents on record in the previous civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, which was withdrawn by him with liberty to file a fresh civil suit. He, therefore, contends that applica
A court may permit additional evidence to ensure fair adjudication if it is relevant, even after evidence closure, stressing the necessity to examine evidence related to a Will in contested property ....
The court allowed a petition for additional evidence despite previous adjournments, citing the admissibility of the documents proposed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of due diligence in producing relevant documents and the discretion of the court in allowing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule....
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....
Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC must be considered at the final hearing of an appeal, not prior.
Additional evidence at rebuttal must clarify issues, not cover previous omissions; courts must ensure applications are not used to delay proceedings.
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
