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 expedited resolution.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

The plaintiff Parampreet Singh has instituted the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 05.09.2018 (Annexure P-15), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna vide which the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for additional evidence and for secondary evidence to prove DDR No.27 dated 05.05.2003 was dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit praying for a declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 06.05.2003 pertaining to land measuring 110 Kanals 15½ Marlas (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), situated at Village Beer Kishan Singh Wala, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, executed by defendant No.4 (Mohan Singh Grewal) in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 (Gurinderpal Singh Grewal, Harinderpal Singh Grewal and Smt. Paramjit Kaur) was illegal, null and void and was not binding upon the rights of the petitioner-plaintiff. A further declaration was sought that the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the said sale deed was illegal and that the mortgage of the suit land by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.5 was illegal and further that the encumbrances created were void. Permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from alienating the suit land in any manner was also sought. Further, injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land was also sought.

3. A composite application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for leading additional evidence to produce certain documents and under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Evidence Act’) (Annexure P-13) for leading secondary evidence to prove DDR No.27 dated 05.05.2023 was moved by the petitioner-plaintiff. The same was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-14). Vide impugned order dated 05.09.2018, the said application was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that one witness namely Constable Manpreet Singh was produced in Court on 18.08.2018 who stated that the record pertaining to DDR No.27 dated 05.05.2003 had been destroyed vide order dated 01.05.2010. However, the statement of the said witness was erroneously not recorded on oath and other documents were not proved by him. The counsel for the plaintiff closed the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff on 18.08.2018 itself. Realizing that an error had been committed, an application was moved on 20.08.2018 itself which was subsequently withdrawn and a composite application was moved on 27.08.2018 which has now been dismissed by the trial Court. Learned counsel has assailed the reasons given by the trial Court stating that the trial Court erroneously held that it was the duty of the plaintiff to have examined the witness on oath. Learned counsel submits that in fact, the Court should have examined the witness on oath and in any case when an application for additional evidence had been moved without any unnecessary delay, the Court erroneously rejected the application by holding that the plaintiff was misusing the process of law. He submits that the petitioner-plaintiff only seeks one effective opportunity to produce the said witness as also the additional evidence. He submits that the other relevant documents referred to in the impugned order do not exist and the plaintiff does not wish to produce any other evidence except for that specifically mentioned in the application. He submits that the plaintiff had no intention to delay his own case.

6. Per contra, le