Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARCHANA PURI, J
Mohan Dev – Appellant
Versus
Ashwani Kumar – Respondent
CR-4086-2019(O&M)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Narender Pal Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: None
The trial Court must frame appropriate issues to protect parties' rights to fair adjudication, ensuring proper opportunities for rebuttal evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Permission to produce additional evidence - Application dismissed by trial court for additional evidence of handwriting and fingerprint expert in pending suit - Trial Court erroneously dismissed application, as relevant issue regarding forgery was not framed - Right to examine any witness must be upheld to do substantial justice. (Paras 1, 5-6, 13)
(B) Procedural law - Lapses in framing issues by trial Court - Appropriate issues essential to provide parties with the opportunity to defend their case adequately - Procedural fairness must be ensured in legal proceedings. (Paras 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery based on an alleged agreement to sell land, later contested as forged by the respondent-defendant, who brought various preliminary objections against the maintainability of the suit.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court erred in rejecting the application for additional evidence; failure to frame appropriate issues limited the petitioner-plaintiff’s ability to refute the respondent-defendant's claims adequately.
Issues: The case raised concerns over the legality of an alleged forged agreement and whether the petitioner should be allowed to produce rebuttal evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the dismissal of the additional evidence application denied equitable opportunity to the petitioner and should be rectified to uphold procedural justice.
Result: The revision petition is allowed.
ARCHANA PURI, J.
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated
29.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), whereby, an application for seeking permission to produce additional evidence of the handwriting and fingerprint expert with his report, in the pending suit, was dismissed.
In pursuance of the notice issued, the respondent did not make appearance.
Counsel for the petitioner heard.
The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-
That, initially, petitioner-plaintiff Mohan Dev had filed a suit against VINEET GULATI 2025.10.01 12:36 respondent-defendant Ashwani Kumar, thereby, seeking recovery of Rs.16,00,000/-, the double of earnest money (i.e. Rs.8,00,000 as earnest money and Rs.8,00,000/- as compensatory amount), as per terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 20.08.2013. As per the version put forth by the petitioner-plaintiff, the respondent-defendant, being the owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanal 0 Marla, as detailed in paragraph No.3 of the plaint, copy whereof is Annexure P-5, had agreed to sell the same to the petitioner-plaintiff. The agreement to sell was executed. Later on, the respondent-defendant did not adhere to the terms of the agreement. Consequently, the petitioner-plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of Rs.16,00,000/- as detailed aforesaid.
On the other hand, in the written statement, the respondent-
defendant had raised various preliminary objections, thereby, disputing the maintainability of the suit in the present form and also alleged about agreement dated 20.08.2013, to be forged and the same was got prepared by playing fraud and with the intention to usurp the suit land. In fact, the version set up was that there was dispute regarding shop and agricultural land between Rajesh, who is power of attorney holder of Mohan Dev and Om Parkash and that dispute was settled before the panchayat. In the panchayat, as security, a stamp paper of Rs.10 was purchased by the father of the respondent-defendant, in the absence of the respondent-defendant. However, this dispute regarding the suit land did not fructify and this stamp paper was used by Rajesh, as agreement to sell of agricultural land. The alleged agreement is result of fraud and misrepresentation and not binding upon the right of the respondent-defendant. As such, the alleged agreement VINEET GULATI 2025.10.01 12:36 was never executed by respondent-defendant and the petitioner-plaintiff never gave money to the respondent-defendant.
From the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed:-
“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of recovery as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?
OPD
4. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD
5. Whether plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the court? OPD
6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
7. Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD
8. Whether plaintiff has not come in the court with the clean hands? OPD
9. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by way of his own act and conduct? OPD
10.Relief.”
The petitioner-plaintiff had led the evidence and closed the same. Even, respondent-defendant had led the evidence. When the case VINEET GULATI 2025.10.01 12:36 was at the stage of rebuttal evidence, an application was filed, at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff to produce handwriting and fingerprint expert in additional evidence, to prove the signatures of the respondent- defendant, upon the agreement to sell in question (Ex.P3). However, the said application was dismissed by learned trial Court.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the revision petition in hand.
At the very outset, considering the pleadings of the parties, it is pertinent to mention that the issues
