[320] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.01.2026 Sadhu Singh …Petitioner versus M/s Sandeep Kumar Sanjeev Kumar Commission Agents and another ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] The present revision petition is directed against Order dated 02.02.2021 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff for leading additional evidence has been allowed.

[2] Plaintiff claims to be a registered firm, who has filed a suit for recovery against the defendants-petitioner. Defendants in the written statement denied the status of the plaintiff as a registered firm and claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit.

[3] Parties went to trial on the following issues framed by the learned Trial Court on 18.12.2017:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover principal amount of Rs.9,13,643.15/- along with interest, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Relief. ”

[4] Plaintiff while leading evidence failed to produce documentary evidence to prove its status as a registered firm. Later on, the present application seeking permission to lead additional evidence was filed. The same was opposed by the petitioner-defendants, claiming that the same was not maintainable at a belated stage after plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence while leading evidence.

[5] Learned Trial Court vide impugned order has allowed the same by placing reliance upon the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘K.K. Velusamy versus N. Palanisamy’, reported as 2011 AIR SC (Civil)

1000 [6] Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- defendants has assailed the impugned order. He contends that the learned Trial Court completely misread the ratio of law laid down in K.K. Velusamy’s case (supra). Party cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna by invoking Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence. He submits that once the plaintiff failed to prove its status of being a registered firm, which was specifically denied by the defendants, he cannot be allowed to cover up the lacuna by moving the present application. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘K.K. Velusamy versus N. Palanisamy’, reported as 2011 AIR SC (Civil) 1000 as well as the judgments of this Court in ‘M/s Satyam Steel versus Smt. Sarla and another’, 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 902, ‘Ram Kumar versus Raj Kumar and others’, 2013(54) RCR (Civil) 308, ‘V.K. Mantro and sons (HUF) and others versus M/s Select Global Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and others’, 2019(3) PLJ 136, ‘M/s Shree Sangmeshwar Mahadev Gramo Udyog Mandal versus Ajmer Singh and another’, 2014(49) RCR (Civil) 512, and ‘Surjit Singh and others versus Jagtar Singh and others’, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537.

[7] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiff submits that the documents could not be produced owing to the negligence on the part of the counsel. The same have direct bearing on the issues. The evidence being in form of the documents have been rightly allowed by the learned Trial Court.

[8] I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

[9] Plaintiff instituted recovery suit claiming to be a partnership firm. By way of additional evidence plaintiff wants to bring on record documentary evidence to prove the registration. Additional evidence allowed by the Trial Court though has no bearing on the merits of the case, but goes to the root of maintainability of the suit. Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy's case