IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

123 CR-2685-2023(O&M)

Date of decision: 28.04.2025 M/s The Panipat Woolen & General Mills Company Limited & Another ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Surinder Kumar & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr.Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat whereby application dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P3) filed by the petitioners for additional evidence, has been dismissed.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said application of the petitioners could not have been dismissed as the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. It is submitted that at the time of an SUNENA

2025.04.30 11:52 application for additional evidence, what is to be seen is the relevancy of the documents sought to be adduced as evidence. However, there is no finding of the learned trial Court in the impugned order as regards the relevancy or otherwise of the said documents. It is submitted that the procedural laws are the handmaids of justice where technical considerations and substantial justice are pitted against each other whereupon the latter should prevail, and technical considerations should take the back seat. It is argued that the Courts should adopt a justice- oriented approach rather than a harsh, pedantic and hyper-technical approach. Ultimate purpose of the procedural laws is the furtherance of cause of justice and not to create obstacles for the parties. It is reiterated that every endeavour should be made to bring forth the best possible evidence for the proper and effective adjudication of the lis at hand. It is reiterated that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners were necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5/plaintiffs vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. It is submitted that it has been correctly found by the learned trial Court that the said documents were very much in the knowledge of the petitioners and in fact admitted to by the petitioners in their written SUNENA

2025.04.30 11:52 statement. As such, the petitioners cannot now be permitted to produce the said documents by way of additional evidence as it was incumbent upon the petitioners to exercise due diligence at the relevant time. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon judgments of this Court in “Kuljit Singh Vs. Gurmeet Singh” Law Finder Doc ID # 838868; and “Buta Singh Vs. Gurmeet Singh” Law Finder Doc ID # 262772, relevant part of which is as under:-

“3...The factum of Jaswant Kaur being of unsound mind was very much in the knowledge of the defendant and additional evidence can only be permitted which could not be produced earlier when the party had an occasion to produce the same, if the party seeking such permission satisfied the Court that evidence could not be produced earlier despite due diligence and that the evidence sought to be produced was not in the knowledge of such party when he had an opportunity to produce such evidence. Nothing of the type has either been alleged or shown to the satisfaction of the Court as already noticed. All the facts were in the knowledge of the defendant- petitioner and there was nothing to prevent him to produce the evidence on an earlier date. Thus, I am of the view that no case is made out for production of additional evidence under Order 18, Rule 17A. In the circumstances, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will