Sohan Singh and Others v. Mohan Singh

RITU TAGORE, J. (Oral)

1.     This revision is against the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur  in a Civil Suit No.50  of  2020  titled  'Mohan  Singh  Vs.  Sohan  Singh  etc.'  whereby  the application  dated  08.12.2023  (Annexure  P-4)  filed  by  Sohan  Singh-petitioner (defendant No.1 before the trial Court) under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') for leading additional evidence, has been dismissed.

2.    Considering the limited prayer made in this revision, notice to respondent is dispensed with.

3.     Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  submits  that  respondent (plaintiff  before  the  trial  Court),  filed  a  suit  for  possession  of  property identified with letters 'ABCD', and bounded with boundaries as outlined and highlighted in red color in the site plan annexed and detailed in the head CR-520-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:029423

n"te "$ the %laint (!nne3ure P-')  a$ter rem"val "$ su%erstru#ture raised .* the %etiti"ners.

4.     -earned #"unsel #"ntends that the %arties inv"lved in the suit are .r"thers. (he suit %r"%ert* is a h"use %revi"usl* all"tted t" their $ather 4artar Sin)h  and su.se5uentl* t" the %etiti"ner  res%"ndent (%lainti$$) and their "ther .r"thers 6")inder Sin)h and !vtar Sin)h under all"tment "rder dated  '2.02.'77,  issued  .*  Pun8a.  9a:$  0"ard.  ;n  %ri"r  liti)ati"n   the %etiti"ner  res%"ndent and their "ther t+" .r"thers +ere de#lared t" have .een  in  8"int  %"ssessi"n  "$  the  suit  %r"%ert*.  (he  res%"ndent  has  als" admitted the same in the earlier liti)ati"n .ut n"+ $alsel* #laimed "+nershi% re)ardin) the suit %r"%ert* in the %resent suit. (he learned #"unsel su.mits that the %etiti"ners2 dis%ute the a##ura#* "$ site %lan $iled .* the res%"ndent in the %resent suit  alle)in) t" .e in#"rre#t  and n"t re$le#tive "$ a#tual and $a#tual %"siti"n %revailin) at the s%"t. (he learned #"unsel $urther su.mits the  res%"ndent2s  #laim  that  %etiti"ners  have  n"  #"n#ern  +ith  the  suit %r"%ert* is in#"rre#t.

5.     (he #"unsel $"r the %etiti"ners $urther su.mits that %etiti"ner-S"han Sin)h had m"ved an a%%li#ati"n  under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-4), seeking permission to tender the documentary evidence such as allotment letter in the name of the parties to the suit and other brothers, receipt dated 19.02.1993, copy of lease deed and receipt dated 19.02.1993 and copy of Khasra Girdawari, and also annexed the aforesaid documents alongwith the application, pleading them to be material evidence for just and complete decision of the case. The learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the significance of the aforementioned documents and also failed to notice that proposed evidence is certified copies of the record and was not disputed by CR-520-2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:029423

the respondent in previous litigation. It is stated that learned trial Court materially erred in dismissing the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates that the proposed evidence is necessary to be placed on record for the effective and complete adjudication of the controversy as the proposed evidence makes it explicit that parties to the suit and other brothers have equal interest in the suit property. A prayer is made to set aside the order and permit presentation of proposed evidence. In support of his arguments, learned counsel referred to the judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this Court titled 'Manmohan Singh Vs. Davinder Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur @ Gurminder Kaur and others' 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 661 and 'Dalbir and others Vs. Surajmal and others' 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 11166.

¶6It is a matter of record that respondent-Mohan Singh filed a suit for possession (Annexure P-1) regarding the suit property detailed with letters ABCD and highlighted with red color as mentioned in the site plan, asserting that all the brothers are residing in their separate houses. The houses marked with letters ABCDEFGH, is exclusively owned by the respondent, and the petitioners have no interest in it. Further, pleaded that in the earlier litigation bearing suit No.17 dated 15.04.2011, the respondent (plaintiff) was declared to be in exclusive possession of the property in dispute, with the petitioners having no concern in the suit property. The respondent also alleged that in month of April 2011 the petitioners along with other, forcibly entered upon the suit property and raised illegal construction as shown with letters ABCD in the site plan attached. On the aforesaid material assertions, the respondent filed the suit for possession. In their written statement, petitioners completely denied the averments of the respondent and asserted that they have equal interest in the suit property. CR-520-2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:029423

They also disputed the correctness of the site plan relied by the respondent.

¶7By way of the application (Annexure P-4), the petitioner-Sohan Singh intended to place on record the documents indicating that both the parties to the suit and other brothers hold equal interest in the suit property, which was allotted to them vide allotment letter (Annexure P-6) and their joint possession is reflected in khasra girdawari.

¶8No doubt the provision of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC meant for production of evidence no more exist on the statute books but the Courts have not been rendered powerless to allow the reception of evidence when it is required to assist in rendering justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India 2005 (3), RCR (Civil) 530 observed that even after deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure, additional evidence can be allowed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure only.

¶9In the given factual matrix, it appears that the documents in question are essential for the proper adjudication of the case. This would assist the Court in comprehensively and effectively deciding the matter pending before it. The counsel for the petitioners admitted that petitioners had applied for certified copies of the documents after the closure of their evidence. In application (Annexure P-4), it is pleaded that the petitioners obtained the certified copies of the documents in question after the closure of their evidence. However, material evidence should not be disregarded on hyper-technicalities and the delay can be atoned by imposing cost.

¶10In view of the aforesaid discussion, to the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court fell in error while dismissing the application of the petitioners. Accordingly impugned order 06.01.2024 is set aside and petitioners are given one opportunity to place on record the proposed CR-520-2024 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:029423

evidence, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs to be paid to the respondent. The trial Court is directed to give one effective opportunity to petitioners and permit them to lead the aforesaid evidence on their behalf.

¶11The revision petition is allowed accordingly. '2.     Pendin)  a%%li#ati"ns   i$  an*   als"  stands  dis%"sed  "$ a##"rdin)l*.

(RITU TAGORE) JUDGE 01%0&%2024 Rim%al 9hether s%ea:in)<reas"ned  :  =es<>" 9hether re%"rta.le    :  =es<>"

CR-520-2024 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:029423 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 CR-520-2024 (O&M) Decided on: 01.03.2024 Sohan Singh and others …Petitioners Versus Mohan Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RITU TAGORE Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Advocate for the petitioners. ****