Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1168 (PNJ)

Sharam Singh v. Gurjit Singh

2001-10-19

JASBIR SINGH

body2001
JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - Petitioner by filing the present revision petition has challenged the order dated June 1, 1992 vide which his prayer to lead evidence in rebuttal was declined and also order dated August 4, 1992 dismissing his application under Order 18, Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Brief facts of the case as apparent from the reading of the paper book are that respondents No. 1 and 2 purchased some land from respondent No. 3. Petitioner challenged the said sale by filing a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. He virtually led no evidence and only brought on record Ex. P.1 a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 and a copy of the sale deed mark A and another sale deed date July 20, 1977 Mark B and closed his evidence in affirmative on December 23, 1991. Thereafter evidence was led by the respondents/defendants and they brought on record Ex. D.1, the original/impugned sale deed and also a copy of the mutation Ex. D2 and closed their evidence on May 14, 1992. Counsel for the respondents/defendants also made a statement giving up issues No. 2, 3 and 6. It further transpires that when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence on May 28, 1992, the petitioner tried to appear as a witness in rebuttal evidence. Then an objection was raised by the defendants that he could not do so since no evidence had been adduced by the defendants to prove issues No. 2, 3 and 6, so the petitioner is not entitled to lead any rebuttal evidence. This objection was upheld by the trial Court and the request was declined vide order dated June 1, 1992. The petitioner never challenged the said order and took a chance by filing application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer that under some misunderstanding he could not appear as his own witness and also could not bring on record certain documents. It was stated that since the counsel for the defendants had made a statement giving up issues No. 2, 3 and 6, the petitioner has been deprived of a valuable right of examining himself as his own witness and also to place on record certain documents. It was stated that since the counsel for the defendants had made a statement giving up issues No. 2, 3 and 6, the petitioner has been deprived of a valuable right of examining himself as his own witness and also to place on record certain documents. This application was contested by the defendants and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated August 4, 1992. Hence this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. From the reading of the grounds of revision petition it transpires that the main grouse of the petitioner is that under some misunderstanding or may be an error on the part of the counsel he could not appear as his own witness and produce the documents while leading the evidence in affirmative. The petitioner intended to say that in the interest of justice he be given an opportunity to bring additional evidence on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently contended that the present revision petition against two orders of different dates is not competent and liable to be dismissed on this score. It was also argued that no opportunity be given to the petitioner to bring on record any rebuttal evidence since no evidence has been led by the respondents on issues No. 2, 3 and 6. He further contended that the petitioner is not even entitled to lead any additional evidence since the case is not covered under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. No doubt at the time of trial no evidence should be shut down merely on the basis of technicalities since all rules and procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to hamper the same but in the present case, the facts are such that no benefit can be given to the petitioner of this general rule. The petitioner filed a suit and while leading his evidence in affirmative, he virtually led no evidence whatsoever. He even did not examine himself as his own witness and kept mum. The respondents led evidence and gave up issues No. 2, 3 and 6. Once no evidence has been led on these issues by the respondents, no opportunity can be given to the petitioner to lead any evidence in rebuttal. He even did not examine himself as his own witness and kept mum. The respondents led evidence and gave up issues No. 2, 3 and 6. Once no evidence has been led on these issues by the respondents, no opportunity can be given to the petitioner to lead any evidence in rebuttal. So far as application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned the case of the petitioner is not covered under those provisions. It is a case of sheer negligence for which no benefit can be given to the petitioner. In suits filed under the provisions of the Punjab Pre- emption Act (as applicable to Haryana) the respondents have every right to take benefit of every technicality and in this case a right has definitely accrued in their favour. This Court in Smt. Sarto v. Dhan Ram, (1993-1) 103 PLR 624 , has held as under :- "It is true that rules of procedure are but handmaids of justice, but the Court must ensure that in the attempt to do justice to one party, no injustice should be caused to the other." 6. The facts of the case are such that these do not show any reason for which petitioner can be allowed to produce additional evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance on the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder and another v. Ram Kumar and another, Judgments Today 2001(6) Supreme Court 94, to contend that in view of the substitution of Section 15 of the Punjab pre- emption Act (as applicable to Haryana), virtually the suit has become redundant. This aspect cannot be looked into at this state. However, the trial Court is advised to see the effect of the above said amendment and the judgment pronounced by the Honble Supreme Court before proceeding further in this suit. 7. In view of the facts stated above, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Since final disposal of the civil suit was started at the time of issuance of notice of motion on August 18, 1992, the trial Court is directed to proceed further with the suit and decide the same expeditiously. Petition dismissed.