CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Prithi and Others vs Balwant Singh and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 11 March 1999 · Citation: (1999) Supp CivCC 106 : (1999) 122 PLR 654 : (1999) 2 RCR(Civil) 377

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.S. Aggarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 18 Rule 17A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 4976 of 1998
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 329 words

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala dated 13.10.1998. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for permission to lead additional evidence.

2.

The gist of the controversy can, briefly, be stated that the petitioners had closed the evidence in February, 1998. Thereafter, the demarcation report dated 27.8.1998 of the abadi deh of village Sain Majra had come into being and the petitioners wanted to produce the said report. The learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that in the statement of the Sarpanch, it has not been mentioned that the Gram Panchayat had applied for demarcation and that in this process, the petitioners are trying to create evidence, but during the course of arguments the respondent''s learned counsel has contended that the said report is not relevant and in any case, it is a procured document. During the pendency of the trial, it had been prepared at the back of the respondent.

3.

At this stage, this Court will not express any opinion about the correctness and validity of the said demarcation report. It is entirely for the trial Court to consider the said fact at the appropriate time.

4.

However, it goes in saying that in terms of Order 18 Rule 17-A, Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners could not have produced the said report when they were leading the evidence, as mentioned above. The report came into being after the petitioners had closed their evidence. Consequently, they were justified in seeking permission of the Court to allow them to produce additional evidence.

5.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and revision petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be granted an opportunity to produce the said report with a corresponding right to the respondent to take all legal factual pleas available under law assailing the report including the permission to lead additional evidence.