Bimlesh Kumar vs Amarjit Kaur

Mandeep Pannu, J

Thee present Civil Revision Petition challenges the order daated 27.08.2025 passsed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiaana, whereby the application of the petitioner for permission to place on record/additionaal evidence i.e. certified copy of order dated 06.03.2025 was dismissed. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the said order and directions to the trial Court to recceive the said document as additional evidence.

Brief Fact

Thee short and relevant facts, takenn from the petition and the recoord, are as follows. The petitioner filed a suit for speecific performance of an agreemment to sell dated 011.03.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintifff in respect of a houuse, particulars of which are set out in the headnote of the plaint. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of speciffic performance by directing the defendant to exeecute and register a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance sale consideration of ₹3,00,000/-, and for permanent injuncttion restraining the defendant from alienating the suiit property to anyone other than the plaintiff. The tootal sale consideration accordingg to the plaint was ₹15,00,000/-, of which the plainntiff alleges that ₹12,00,000/- was paid to the defendant in the presence of marrginal witnesses. The defendant disputed the claim and pleaded that the agreement iss forged and that the plaintiff hass no right, title or interest in the suit property.

It is alleged by the learned counnsel for the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, the suit property wass in the actual possession of one Parminder Kaur (mother-in-law of the petitioner). During the pendency of the proceedings, thee respondent/defendant filed a reent petition against Parminder K aur (impleading herr as respondent No.2), claiminng that she was a sub-tenant, and obtained an ex parte order dated 17.08.2018. Parminder Kaur challenged that orrder by way of a reevision before this Court by filling CR No.410 of 2019, titled as “Parminder Kauur v. Amarjit Kaur & Anr.”. Thiss Court vide order dated 07.12.20022 set aside the order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controlller, Ludhiana and directed the Rent Controller to decide afresh within six months. Thereafter, procceedings in the rent matter continued and a further order daated 19.05.2023 is reeflected in the record. An appeaal from that order was filed beffore the learned Firstt Appellate Authority which, after delay, was directed by this Coourt to be decided. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by order dated 07.02.2025.

Subbsequent to the disposal of the saaid appeal, Parminder Kaur filedd an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) praying for restitution of the status-quo//physical vacant possession and for restoration of poossession of the property in quesstion. The learned trial Court in the restitution proceeedings passed an order dated 06.03.2025 directing restorationn of possession in favour of Parminder Kaur, and the warrants for execution were issued (the recoord reflects steps taken in execcution during the course of 20224– 2025). By the time these events crystallised, the parties in the suit for specific performance had closed their evidence. The evidence of the plaintiff evidence was closed on 27.01.2025 and evidence of the defendant was also closed byy a subsequent ordeer.

Thee petitioner thereupon filed an application in the suit for permisssion to place on recoord the certified copy of the order dated 06.03.2025 as additioonal evidence, on the ground that the said order was a subsequent development and material for adjjudication of the suit. The learnned trial Court vide its order daated 27.08.2025 dismmissed the application. The trial Court observed that (i) the orrder dated 06.03.20225 could be judicially noticed at the stage of arguments evenn if relevant; and (iii) as the relief of restitution/posssession had not been claimed in the plaint and as the order concerned restoration in favour of Parminder Kaur (who is not a party to the suit as plaintiff), the saidd document was not relevant for adjudicating thee real controversy between the parties in the specific performance suit. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged that order by way of the pressent revision.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

Leaarned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order daated 06.03.2025 is a subsequent development whichh materially affects the right of the parties and therrefore the trial court ought to have permitted it to be placed on record as additioonal evidence and that the order was passed during the pendencyy of the suit and after closure of evidence, and thereffore it was incumbent upon the trial court to take it into account and refusal to place the order on record cauuses prejudice to the petitioner in his case for specificc performance.

I haave heard learned counsel for thee petitioner and pursed the record.

Thee questions which arise for determination are:

(i) Whether the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the applicattion to place on record the certified copy of order dated 06.03.2025 as addditional evidence?

(ii) Whether the said order is necessary and relevant for adjudicattion of the lis between the parties to the suit for specific performance?

Findings

It is well established in law that a Court has power to permit additional evideence in appropriate cases even after the closure of evidence, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only where the proposed additioonal evidence is bothh relevant and necessary for propper adjudication and could not, with due diligence, have been produced earlier. T he guiding considerations are (a) relevance of the document to the real controverssy between the parties; (b) necessity of the document for deciding substantial questions in controversy; (c) whether the document relatees to facts which have arisen suubsequent to the trial and thereffore could not have been produced earlier; and (d) whether the opposite party woould suffer prejudicee by the late production and whether such prejudice can be compensated.

Applying these principles to thee facts of the present case, the following aspects are material.

i) First, the order datted 06.03.2025 deals with restitution/possession in favour of Parminder Kaur, a person who, as on date, is not the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance. The suit in hand is primarily for speccific performance of an agreemment between the petitioner and the respondent and for injunction against alieenation. The relief of restitutioon/possession in favour of a thhird perrson (even though she is the mother-in-law of the petitioner) is not a prayer made in the plaint. The document sought to be placed on record, therefore, does not, on its face, create any right in favourr of the petitioner as plaintiff in the specific performance suit. It is aimmed at restoration of possession to Parminder Kaur who is not before the couurt in the role of plaintiff in the present suit.

ii) Second, the trial court has correctly noted that an order passed by another learned court in proceedings between other parties cann, if releevant, be noticed by the Court att the stage of arguments. The po wer to take judicial notice of the conteents and existence of an order of a Court of competent jurisdiction is recognised. If the party wants the couurt to formally act upon the coontent of that order, it is open to advvance argument on the said order. Permitting a separate late doccument to be read in as evidennce when that document does not direectly bear upon the core controvversy between the parties would be an exercise of discretion that calls for caution.

iii) Third, the disputed document must be shown to be necesssary for deciding the principal relief claimed in the plaint (specific perrformance). The central questionn in a suit for specific performance is whether the agreement is genuine, whether the petitioner performmed his part (payment of consideration or readiness and willingness), and whether there are impediments to specific performance. The restitution order in favour of Parmiinder Kaur, although it may expllain a change in possession, does not, prima facie, bear on the authenticcity of the agreement, the payment of consideration (which the petitiooner sayys was made to the defendant), or the mutual contractual obligations undder the agreement. The petitionner has not demonstrated how the restitution order would materially advance proof of his core causee of action beyond matters already in evvidence.

iv) Finally, allowing additional evidence of the character of the ordder dated 06.03.2025 would invitte examination into collateral issues which are not germane to the suit for specific performance and woould delay final adjudication. The discrretion to refuse such evidence was, therefore, exercised by the trial couurt in the interest of judicial finality andd orderly conduct of the trial.

Conclusion

In the view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, infirmityy or perversity in thee order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junnior Division), Ludhiana. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned ordder dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana is upheld

Pennding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.