Civil Revision No. 7257 of 2017 (O&M)

-1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 7257 of 2017 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 16.11.2017

R.V.Mehta

......Petitioner

Versus

Subramanian and another

......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:

Mr. Parshotam Lal Singla, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India assailing the order dated 3.10.2017 (Annexure P-7)

vide which the applications filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC to

file the rejoinder and lead additional evidence at the rebuttal stage, had been

dismissed.

The petitioner was asked to place on record the statement made

by the plaintiff as well as the zimni orders. Those documents have been

placed on record and are taken on record.

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking possession of a portion

measuring 6.78 marlas out of the total land measuring 3 kanals 404 square

yards of plot No. 4 fully detailed in the plaint. The case of the plaintiff was

that he was the owner of plot No. 4 and the defendants were in illegal and

unauthorized possession of the portion since April 2012 and had failed to

hand over the possession and he was entitled to the possession of the

property and mesne profits @ Rs. 3,000/- per month.

The defendants filed the written statement and pleaded that the

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia

2017.11.27 11:56

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 7257 of 2017 (O&M)

-2-

plaintiff had failed to attach the proper site plan and the suit was vexatious

and barred by limitation and it was a case of suppression of material facts.

It was pleaded that the plaintiff had appointed Suman Kumar Walia as his

general attorney vide document dated 28.4.1995. They had purchased the

suit property from Suman Kumar Walia in the year 2000 vide a registered

sale deed and this fact had been intentionally withheld and it amounted to

concealment of material fact.

No rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff nor the allegations were

controverted and the plaintiff led his evidence and the plea set up by him in

the plaint was set out in the affidavit filed by him. He was subjected to a

lengthy cross-examination where he admitted that he had appointed Suman

Kumar Walia as his attorney but he gave some explanation which we need

not refer here. After the defendants had closed their evidence, the case was

fixed for rebuttal evidence when it was brought to the notice of the Court

that an application had been filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC.

The date of the filing of the application is not referred.

The prayer made by the plaintiff was that he was under a bona

fide belief that he had filed the replication to rebut the contents of the plea

taken in the written statement but on recent inspection of the file it came to

his notice that inadvertently replication had not been filed and he had left a

“big lacuna” and he may be permitted to place the replication on record. A

separate application was moved for permission to lead additional evidence

and the plaintiff wanted to produce the judgments and the decrees, the site

plan and the statement made by Suman Kumar in the earlier litigation

between him and Suman Kumar. It was mentioned that Suman Kumar had

filed a suit for specific performance relating to the disputed sale deed and

Gurpreet Singh Bhatia

2017.11.27 11:56

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 7257 of 2017 (O&M)

-3-

the said suit was dismissed and the attorney was not competent and the sale

deed was a nullity.

The lower Court decided both the applications vide a common

order and dismissed both the prayers and observed as under:-

“Perusal of the case file shows that the plaintiff has filed the

present suit for po