IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Leelawan& (deceased) thr her LRs and anr. . . . . Pe&&oners Vs.

Om Parkash (deceased) thr his LRs and ors. . . . . Respondents Reserved on: 04.02.2026 Pronounced on: 06.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera&ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the pe##oners.

Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for respondent Nos.9 to 11, 12(i, iii, viii, a and b).

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The pe##oners herein are the plain#ffs in Civil Suit No. 3964 of

2013, #tled “Leelawan(cid:8) and another v. Om Parkash and others”, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra. They have invoked the re- visional jurisdic#on of this Court to assail the order dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure P-3), whereby their applica#on under Sec#on 151 CPC seeking permission to ad-

duce addi#onal evidence was dismissed.

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the pe##oners, who are daughters of Smt. Bholi, ins#tuted the suit in April 2013, seeking declara#on and possession to the effect that various sale deeds, exchange deeds, mortgages, muta#ons and compromises executed between the years 1964 to 1972, detailed in the plaint, are null, void, illegal and not binding upon their rights. Consequen- #al relief of permanent injunc#on restraining the defendants from aliena#ng or crea#ng encumbrance over the suit property was also sought.

3. The defendants contested the suit. Issues were framed, and both par#es led their respec#ve evidence. A=er the closure of evidence, the case was listed for rebu>al/arguments.

4. At that advanced stage, the pe##oners moved an applica#on un- der Sec#on 151 CPC, pleading that while preparing for arguments, certain docu-

ments were shown to their counsel, namely:

(i) a cer#fied copy of a sale deed dated 5.6.1970 pertaining to land measuring

21 Kanal 7 Marla allegedly sold to Ram Kishan, brother of defendant No.1; and (ii) a cer#fied copy of a lease deed dated 27.02.1964 rela#ng to land measuring

164 Kanal 11 Marla.

5. It was pleaded that these documents were material to establish that the land in ques#on had been mortgaged/leased and that the impugned sale deeds were fraudulent. It was further asserted that these documents were 30 years old, cer#fied copies, admissible in evidence, and that their produc#on would not prejudice the defendants.

6. The said applica#on was opposed by the defendants. The learned Trial Court, vide a detailed order dated 05.05.2017, dismissed the applica#on, holding that the same was belated, lacked due diligence and was intended to fill up lacunae.

7. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the pe##oners contends that the documents sought to be produced are cer#fied copies of old documents, which go to the root of the controversy, and that the Court pos- sesses ample inherent powers under Sec#on 151 CPC to permit addi#onal evi- dence in the interest of jus#ce. Reliance is placed upon K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, AIR 2011 SC 1000, and Rukaiyabibi Ahmed Ali Ismail and ors. v.

Musa Ismail Mahmed Khusal and ors., (2015) 3 SCC 677.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the pe##oners had already closed their evidence in affirma#ve on 30.01.2017. It is further pointed out that a=er closure of evidence of both sides, the pe##oners had earlier moved an applica#on to produce the same documents during re- bu>al evidence, which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 29.03.2017. This material fact, it is argued, has been deliberately concealed by the pe##oners in the present proceedings. It is contended that the present ap-

plica#on is nothing but an a>empt to re-open the en#re case and fill up lacu-

nae, which is impermissible.

9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the par#es and has care-

fully examined the record.

10. At the outset, it is significant to note that the pe##oners had ear- lier moved an applica#on seeking permission to produce the same documents during rebu>al evidence,