Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3377 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. Devinder Kaur

2006-08-24

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, vide which the plaintiff-respondent herein has been allowed to lead additional evidence subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit on the ground that she is mother of the late Shri Parminder Singh alias Boby, who is alleged to have been murdered by the defendant and, therefore, suit for damages was filed on account of death of Parminder Singh. 3. The case set up by the petitioner was that the plaintiff-respondent was a mentally depressed lady and that during the proceedings of the criminal case inquest report was prepared by Inspector Jaipal Singh and FIR No. 273 dated 3.9.1996 was registered with regard to murder of Parminder Singh. A site plan was prepared during investigation of the case showing place of occurrence. It was the further case of the plaintiff-respondent that during investigation love letters numbering 11 written by Akal Rachna Kaur to Parminder Singh were recovered. It was also her case that in the post-mortem report it was mentioned that aluminium phosphate pesticide was detected in the body of the deceased. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent moved an application for cross-examination of Sarvshri Karnail Singh and Jaspreet Singh in support of the case. It was also the case of the plaintiff-respondent that this evidence could not be produced earlier due to lack of proper guidance. 4. The application was contested by the defendant-petitioner herein. 5. The learned trial Court taking note of the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Venkata Ramana Agencies and others v. Koppu Gurana and others, 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 67 came to the conclusion that the Court should be liberal in permitting the parties to adduce evidence which they wish to bring on record provided that it is not an abuse of process of Court. The Court below also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chattar Singh v. Mehar Singh, 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 577 (P&H) to hold that material evidence cannot be shut only due to some delay in moving the application. The Court below also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chattar Singh v. Mehar Singh, 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 577 (P&H) to hold that material evidence cannot be shut only due to some delay in moving the application. The trial Court also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Phool Chand Jain and others v. Smt. Jotri Devi and others, 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 71 to hold that additional evidence should not be denied on the ground that evidence sought now to be produced could not have been produced when the evidence was being led in affirmative or rebuttal. 6. The case of the petitioner was that both the parties had closed their evidence and the evidence sought to be produced was already in existence when the evidence was being led by the plaintiff-respondent. Therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be produced at this stage. 7. The learned Court below allowed the application for additional evidence by holding that the evidence sought to be produced was material evidence which could not be refused merely on account of delay in filing the application. 8. Mr. Arun Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that no additional evidence could be permitted by reopening the affirmative evidence after the same was closed by the plaintiff-respondent as it would result into great prejudice to the defendant-petitioner and for this purpose, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sachin v. Smt. Sunita Vashisht and others, 2005(2) RCR(Civil) 481. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the letters sought to be produced were not relevant for disposal of controversy between the parties and, therefore, their production was irrelevant. Therefore, by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) Latest Judicial Reports 436, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff-respondent could not be allowed to produce evidence to rebut the evidence led by the defendant-petitioner as the burden of issue was on the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the documents sought to be produced in evidence were very much within the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent and she had not exercised due diligence and, therefore, she could not be allowed to lead additional evidence. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the documents sought to be produced in evidence were very much within the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent and she had not exercised due diligence and, therefore, she could not be allowed to lead additional evidence. 10. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find force in the same. 11. The learned trial Court by allowing application for additional evidence has merely held that the evidence sought to be produced was material evidence without disclosing as to how the same was relevant. The learned trial Court has further not considered the argument raised by the petitioner as to how and why the evidence which was earlier within the knowledge of the plaintiff- respondent, was not produced when the evidence was being led in affirmative. 12. The learned trial Court has also not taken note of the fact that the provision of additional evidence has been deleted so as to discourage the leading of additional evidence. The additional evidence can only be allowed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the Court and it is settled that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is to be based on principles of equity and justice. The Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction cannot act in prejudice to one party. In the present case, it would be noticed that if the additional evidence is allowed to lead, it would reopen the whole case as both the parties have closed their evidence. In view of what has been discussed above, I find force in the present revision petition. Accordingly, it is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge allowing additional evidence is set aside. Petition allowed.