Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J
Phoolpati – Appellant
Versus
Anil – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges order dismissing application for providing new evidence in appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent argues against filling evidentiary lacunae during appellate proceedings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court finds trial process was sufficient and petitioner had opportunity to present evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. parties cannot reopen trials to fix negligence or fill gaps at appellate level. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. article 227 powers are limited to maintain judicial discipline and finality. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION
1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.11.2019, passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar (Annexure P-5) vide which the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for taking her specimen thumb impressions in the Court for getting comparison done by Handwriting and Finger Print Expert has been dismissed.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and had in the said suit challenged the judgment a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
