Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 11 (PNJ)

Surjit Kaur v. Kiranpaul Kaur

2002-01-03

JASBIR SINGH

body2002
ORDER Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated August 2, 1991, vide which it was ordered by the trial Court that the evidence earlier recorded before remand of the case by the appellate Court on April 23, 1991, will not be taken note of and the parties will lead their evidence afresh in the pending suit. Challenge is also to the order dated August 29, 1992, vide which application of the petitioner-defendant to treat the earlier evidence as a valid one in the suit, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs Smt. Kiranpaul Kaur and Kulvir Kaur filed a suit for declaration against petitioner Surjit Kaur and proforma respondents Bachan Singh and Bikkar Singh. The suit was decreed on February 19, 1990, and in appeal the judgment was reversed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, on April 23, 1991, and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision. The case came up before the trial Court, which passed an order on August 2, 1991, to the effect that the evidence recorded in the case was not in accordance with law and consequently, the evidence already led by the parties was ordered to be no evidence in the eyes of law. Thereafter the case was adjourned for recording evidence. The plaintiffs then produced their evidence. After completion of plaintiffs evidence some opportunities were given to the defendants to lead their evidence. Then on July 23, 1992, petitioner-defendant Surjit Kaur moved one application with the prayer that the evidence already led by her in the suit be treated as evidence on her part. The said application was declined by the trial Court vide order dated August 29, 1992. Hence this revision petition. 3. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that once the petitioner has not challenged the earlier order dated August 2, 1991, at a proper time and thereafter the plaintiffs also concluded their evidence afresh, present application was not maintainable. The trial court was justified in rejecting her application for treating her earlier evidence recorded as a valid evidence. Initially the suit was decided on the basis of statements only. The matter went in appeal and the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the case for fresh decision. The trial court was justified in rejecting her application for treating her earlier evidence recorded as a valid evidence. Initially the suit was decided on the basis of statements only. The matter went in appeal and the appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the case for fresh decision. The trial Court directed the parties to adduce their evidence afresh vide order dated August 2, 1991. The petitioner allowed respondents No. 1 and 2 to lead their evidence without any objection and thereafter the case was adjourned for her evidence to October 31, 1991, November 18, 1991, December 4, 1991, December 18, 1991, February 3, 1992, March 4, 1992, April 24, 1992 and June 8, 1992. It is only thereafter that she moved application on July 23, 1992 which has been declined by the trial Court vide order dated August 29, 1992. The sequence of events and the conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that the application was malafide and she was making an attempt to delay the suit which is pending since 1989. Under these circumstances, it was not open to the defendant- petitioner to move the application, which has since been dismissed by the trial Court. 4. In view of the reasoning given above, this revision petition is dismissed. 5. This Court, while issuing notice of motion on September 21, 1992, stayed further proceedings till further orders. The trial Court is now directed to proceed with the suit and try to dispose of the same expeditiously. Petition dismissed.