IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (203)

CR-4335-2017 Date of decision: - 14.10.2025 Chameli Devi ....Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present:- Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, and Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 and 4.

None for respondent No.2.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.05.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Safidon, vide which the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for leading additional evidence has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was the plaintiff in the suit and had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the building/property in question. It is further submitted that the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 27.05.2015 and the petitioner had moved an application for additional evidence in order to prove the following three documents: -

“i. Certified copy of the plaint of the civil suit no.196.

ii. Certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2015 in the above civil suit number 196 passed by the court of Sh. Vishal, Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon.

iii. Certified copy of affidavit in evidence of plaintiff Raj Kumar with his Statement in the civil suit number 196.”

It is further submitted that the judgment dated 18.08.2015 has been passed subsequent to the closing of the evidence and since the said judgment is with respect to the suit property, thus, the said judgment is necessary for adjudication of the present case. It is argued that the said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order dated 04.05.2017 (Annexure P-7) and it thus prayed that the same be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner be allowed and the petitioner be permitted to lead additional evidence.

3. Respondent No.2 was duly served and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.08.2017 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for appearing respondents No.1, 3 and 4, on the other hand, has submitted that in the present case, the copy of the plaint which is sought to be produced on record is of the year 2012 and the suit for permanent injunction was instituted on 26.07.2012 and was thus in existence at the time when the plaintiff was leading his evidence which was closed on 27.05.2015. It is further submitted that even the statement of Raj Kumar in examination-in-chief was recorded in the said suit for permanent injunction prior to the date of closing of the evidence dated 27.05.2015 and in fact the petitioner has produced on record the cross-examination of the said Raj Kumar which has been exhibited as Ex.P-14 and thus, the said two documents cannot even remotely be permitted to be produced on record as it cannot be said that in spite of due diligence the petitioner could not produce the said documents while leading his evidence. With respect to the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 has submitted that the same is not relevant for consideration, inasmuch as, by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015 only an injunction suit was decided, whereas, the present suit has been filed by the petitioner for declaration. It is further submitted that it is a matter of settled law that the finding on a suit for permanent injunction cannot be considered to be binding in a suit for declaration. It is further submitted that the appeal against the said judgment and decree is still pending and even in case the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015 is taken on record of the case, the arguments of the contesting respondents on the aspect of the said judgment and