Parkash Kaur vs Jagir Singh And Ors

Raj Mohan Singh, J

[1]. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ajnala vide which prayer for leading additional evidence in

the form of original sale deed dated 16.01.2004 was declined.

[2]. Perusal of record would show that notice of motion in the present revision petition was issued on 29.11.2017. As per office report respondents

have been duly served. However, there is no representation on their behalf since the date of effecting service. Faced with the situation, this Court is

left with no option except to decide this revision petition on merits.

[3]. Brief facts are that in a suit for partition by metes and bounds, the petitioner being defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte and a

preliminary decree was drawn. Proceedings in respect of passing of final decree are still pending. Petitioner has already moved an application under

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte preliminary decree. The said application is also pending before the trial Court.

[4]. Application for leading additional evidence was filed on the ground that vide the sale deed dated 16.01.2004, the plaintiff himself sold 14 Marlas of

land to defendant No.7/petitioner and thereafter filed the suit for partition by metes and bounds.

[5]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed in question would enhance the entitlement of the petitioner and would reduce the

entitlement of plaintiff in the joint land. The sale deed in question would go to the roots of the case, therefore, production of the same will be relevant

for adjudication of the rights of the parties.

[6]. Learned counsel by relying upon Parminder Singh vs. Manjit Singh & Ors., 2015(7) R.C.R. (Civil) 918 contended that the additional evidence

sought to be produced would be relevant for real adjudication of rights of the parties as the sale deed has materially effected the entitlement of the

plaintiff and would enhance the share of defendant No.7/petitioner.

[7]. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

[8]. The test for granting indulgence for leading additional evidence is only to see that the document in question is just and essential for real

determination of the controversy between the parties. For any lapse on the part of the petitioner, the opposite party can best be compensated with

adequate cost. Cause of justice cannot be sacrificed merely on the ground of any delay in producing the document.

[9]. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow defendant No.7/petitioner to adduce additional evidence in the form

of original sale deed dated 16.01.2004 executed by the plaintiff himself thereby transferring 14 marlas of land in favour of the petitioner. The effect of

additional evidence would be tested by the trial Court at the relevant stage.

[10]. Consequently, impugned order dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ajnala is set aside. This revision petition is allowed,

however subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to be paid to the plaintiff. Payment of costs shall be the condition precedent for granting

indulgence by the trial Court in the aforesaid context.