Shakuntla vs Dalip Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff no. 1 Shakuntla has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 8.10.2011 Annexure P/1 passed by learned trial court thereby dismissing application filed by plaintiffs for additional evidence. Suit was filed by petitioner and Munesh Devi plaintiff no. 2 since deceased and represented by proforma respondents no. 4 to 6 against respondents no. 1 to 3 as defendants.

Case of the plaintiff is that Rajinder Singh agreed to sell the suit property to Dalip Singh defendant no. 1 vide registered agreement dated 17.7.1996 and delivered possession thereof to defendant no. 1 who further agreed to sell the suit property to plaintiffs vide registered agreement dated 5.5.2004 and possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiffs. However, Hari Singh defendant no. 3 has executed sale deed dated 9.6.2004 of the suit property in favour of defendant no. 2. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit property.

The plaintiffs in their application for additional evidence alleged that the original registered agreement dated 17.7.1996 was handed over to their counsel and kept lying in his brief and was not produced in evidence. Accordingly, the application was moved for producing the said agreement by way of additional evidence.

The application was resisted by defendant no. 2 who pleaded that agreement dated 17.7.1996 is fabricated and defendant no. 3 has sold suit property to defendant no. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 9.6.2004. It was also pleaded that the application has been filed at the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments.

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/1 has dismissed the plaintiffs'' application for additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff no. 1 has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the parties reiterated their respective stands noticed hereinbefore.

I have carefully considered the matter. Necessity for producing additional evidence arises when proposed evidence is not produced at the proper stage. In the instant case, registered agreement dated 17.7.1996 sought to be produced by way of additional evidence has already been pleaded in the plaint. The said agreement is registered one and prima facie it cannot be said that the same has now been fabricated. Evidentiary value thereof shall be assessed by the trial court after the same is proved. I am not expressing any opinion regarding the same. In my considered view, ends of justice would be met if the proposed additional evidence is allowed on payment of costs. Application for additional evidence could not have been dismissed merely on the ground of delay. Defendants can be compensated by way of costs. They shall also get opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal of proposed additional evidence. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/1 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application for producing additional evidence is allowed and the plaintiffs are permitted to lead proposed additional evidence subject to payment of Rs. 7500/- as costs precedent.