Satya Prem vs Laxmi Narayan

Pankaj Purohit, J

This civil revision is directed against the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar in Original Suit No.35 of 2009 “Laxmi Narayan Vs. Satya Prem”, whereby, the application paper No.126C moved by the revisionist/ defendant for recalling PW1 Laxmi Narayan has been rejected as well as the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by in the same Original Suit, whereby, the application paper No.129C moved by the revisionist/defendant to permit him to file some additional documents was rejected.

On perusal of the record it appears that an Original Suit No. 35/2009 “Laxmi Narayan Vs. Satya Prem” was instituted in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar for partition and possession for half portion of the property in dispute in the Original Suit. During the trial, PW1 Plaintiff–Laxmi Narayan was produced and examined. From the record it reflected that an application dated 11.01.2020 was moved by the revisionist/defendant for recalling and re-examining the plaintiff PW1–Laxmi Narayan on the ground that the advocate of the revisionist/defendant has not cross-examined PW1-Laxmi Narayan on the questionnaire (list of questions) supplied by the revisionist/defendant to his advocate Mr. Rajendra Joshi. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing an objection paper No.127C stating that the application was based on wrong averments; Mr. Rajendra Joshi, advocate has been conducting the case, since, its institution and the application paper No.126C has been moved by the revisionist/defendant only to delay the proceedings and accordingly, a prayer is made to reject the application. Another application paper No.129C was also filed by the revisionist/defendant for filing the additional document and the said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff, by filing an objection paper No.130C that the documents sought to be filed by the revisionist/defendant are photocopies of the documents, which are neither required nor admissible for proper decision of the original suit.

These applications were rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar. The reasons, which have been cited by the learned trial court while rejecting the applications are that the cross-examination of PW1–Laxmi Narayan has been done on behalf of the revisionist/defendant and the revisionist/ defendant was present on each and every date, therefore, in the event, when sufficient opportunity has been given to the revisionist/defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness PW1-Laxmi Narayan, no further opportunity could be given in the shape of the re-examination of the said witness to fill the lacuna in the case of the revisionist/defendant. According to the learned trial court, this would become an endless process and accordingly, the application was rejected. So far as application paper No.129C is concerned, the learned trial court recorded a categorical finding that the documents sought to be adduced are photocopies of the documents and even some of them are the photocopies of the documents from the original suit; these documents are neither required for deciding the Original Suit in merits nor are admissible in evidence and accordingly, rejected that application paper No.129C too.

That it is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.02.2020 the revisionist/defendant is before this Court. However, the prayer clause of the revision is not clear about the order by which the application paper No.129C was rejected, but, that order is also annexed with the revision.

Heard the revisionist/defendant Mr. Satya Prem, in-person at length. None appeared from the side of the respondent/plaintiff despite service.

The revisionist/defendant has argued beyond the record that his advocate has not cross-examined the witness of the PW-1- Laxmi Narayan on the basis of the list of questions handed over by the revisionist-defendant to him; the revisionist/defendant is an old man suffering from Facial Paralysis and Dementia and he could not understand as to what is going on during the trial and so he should be given opportunity of the cross-examining PW1-Laxmi Narayan.

I have perused the records as well as the impugned order along with the list of questions and found that the reasons stated by the learned trial court while rejecting the applications, paper No.126C and application paper No.129C, are legally sound and convincing. Impugned orders, therefore, need no interference.

There is yet another aspect of the matter that the revision was filed in the year 2020 and the proceedings of the Original Suit No.35/2009 were never stayed.

This Court vide order dated 24.11.2022 has called for a report about the status of the Original Suit and according to the report submitted by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Haridwar, the Original Suit was fixed for defendant’s evidence as per the report.

Thus, in this view of the matter too, any interference would entail into re-examination of all the plaintiff’s witnesses and would hamper the progress of the proceedings, which would delay the cause of justice.

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to inform the revisionist/defendant, who appeared in-person, about passing of this judgment.