Sanjay and others vs Ravi Bala Jain and others

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 8729-CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 2044 of 2012

Sanjay etc. legal representatives of defendant No. 1-Kalawati since deceased have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 24.02.2012 Annexure P-7 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat thereby dismissing application Annexure P-5 moved by petitioners for additional evidence.

Petitioners alleged in their application that documents sought to be produced by additional evidence came to their knowledge for the first time when defendants No. 2 to 6 (proforma respondents No. 4 to 8) filed application for setting aside ex parte proceedings against them by referring to the said documents.

Respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs by filing reply Annexure P-6 resisted the application Annexure P-5 moved by petitioners and inter alia pleaded that all these documents were already in knowledge of the petitioners when they led their evidence and they even marked the said documents in evidence without proving the same.

Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-7 dismissed the petitioners'' application Annexure P-5 for additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Petitioners sought indulgence of the trial Court for additional evidence, but petitioners did not approach the trial Court with clean hands. The petitioners falsely alleged in their application Annexure P-5 that the documents sought to be produced by additional evidence were earlier not in their knowledge and came to their knowledge when defendants No. 2 to 6 filed application for setting aside ex parte proceedings. However this plea taken by petitioners in their application is false because the petitioners were already aware of these documents and had even placed the same on record and marked the same without proving the same. Consequently, the petitioners, who did not approach the trial Court with clean hands, have been rightly declined permission to lead additional evidence. This Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with impugned order of the trial Court in these circumstances. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the instance of a party who does not approach the Court with clean hands. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.