Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 135 (PNJ)

Kehar Singh Dhulku v. Amarjit Kaur

2010-01-07

T.P.S.MANN

body2010
Judgment T.P.S.MANN, J. 1. Application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permission to bring additional documentary evidence on record in his suit for declaration and possession was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh on 29.2.2008. Aggrieved of the same, he is before this Court by way of revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. In his suit, the plaintiff sought declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No.1-respondent in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and registered on 21.7.1985 was null and void, and, therefore, the said defendants had no right, title or interest in the property so sold. He also prayed for possession of the said property which was a house. While the suit was pending, the plaintiff filed an application stating therein that he had obtained some documentary evidence through the Central Public information Officer, Estate Office, U. T. , Chandigarh from the noting of RPD 157758 pertaining to Kothi No.1551, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh. These documents were kept confidential and could not be obtained earlier. These documents clearly establish that the aforementioned plot was purchased by the plaintiff on 8.7.1976. The plaintiff also attached the list of 22 documents with his application and prayed that they be allowed to be put on record by way of additional evidence. 3. The defendants had opposed the application by stating that the plaintiff already knew about all the documents mentioned in the index of the application not only prior to the filing of the suit but even while leading his evidence. His evidence already stood closed on 17.9.2007 and, therefore, the application was not maintainable and filed with the sole purpose of prolonging the litigation. It was also stated that the documents sought to be brought on record do not pertain to the present suit, rather they concerned other litigation between the parties. The disputed property was never purchased by the plaintiff on 8.7.1976 as alleged. 4. While passing the impugned order, learned Court below held that the plaintiff failed to show as to how the documents sought to be brought on record by additional evidence were relevant to the controversy in hand. The application filed by the plaintiff in that regard was, accordingly, dismissed. 5. 4. While passing the impugned order, learned Court below held that the plaintiff failed to show as to how the documents sought to be brought on record by additional evidence were relevant to the controversy in hand. The application filed by the plaintiff in that regard was, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Though alongwith his application for additional evidence, the plaintiff had attached the list of 22 documents, which he sought to place on record by way of additional evidence yet while filing the present revision, he has confined his prayer to only six documents, four of which have been attached with the revision as Annexure P2, while remaining two as Annexures P3 and P4. Even in para 4 (iv), the petitioner has stated that he attached Annexures P2, P3 and P4 with his application for being brought on record as additional evidence but the learned trial Court erred in overlooking the same. Annexure P3 is the letter issued on 3.8.2007 by the Estate Officer and addressed to the petitioner in reference to his application dated 11.7.2007, whereby the petitioner was informed that his referred request had been examined but could not be acceded to as he was not owner of property in question. Similarly, vide Annexure P4, another intimation was issued to the petitioner on 6.9.2007 by the Central public Information Officer, Estate Office, U. T. , Chandgiarh informing him that the person, who was owner of the property at that time had objected to the supplying of the documents. However, the petitioner was asked to inspect the file on any working day. As mentioned above, Annexure P2 contains four different documents. First one is a notice under Sec.8-A issued in respect of the breach of conditions of allotment. It is mentioned therein that site No.1551 in Sector 36-D, Chandigarh was allotted in favour of Sat Gursharan Singh on 10.6.1968 and the allottee had sold the said site to the petitioner through indirect sale by executing general power of attorney in his favour on 12.7.1976. The second one is copy of the notice dated 29.6.1977 issued by the Estate Officer, U. T. , Chandigarh to Sat Gursharan singh, wherein it also stood mentioned that the allottee had sold/transferred site No.1551, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh in favour of the petitioner. The second one is copy of the notice dated 29.6.1977 issued by the Estate Officer, U. T. , Chandigarh to Sat Gursharan singh, wherein it also stood mentioned that the allottee had sold/transferred site No.1551, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh in favour of the petitioner. The third document is the reply dated 30.8.1977 submitted by the defendant-respondent as attorney of Sat Gursharan Singh to the notice under Sec.8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. Last of all is the letter dated 4.9.1980 sent by the petitioner to the Estate Officer, U. T. , Chandigarh requiring him not to grant permission to his wife to sell/mortgage/lease/let or transfer Kothi No.1551, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh till his arrival in early 1981. According to him, his wife, i. e. the defendant-respondent had manipulated the sale of the plot in question in her favour, although he had the power of attorney to sell or transfer the same in his name and he had even taken permission from the office to transfer the same in his sons names. In his suit, the plaintiff-petitioner has been claiming that he had been working in the Merchant Navy as Electrical Engineer and earning handsome income. In order to settle properly in life, he purchased a plot bearing No.1551, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh, upon which he raised construction later on. On the other hand, defendant No.1 seems to be asserting that it was she who had purchased the plot in question and had, therefore, validly sold it in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. In view of the respective stands of the parties, the four different documents, which have been attached as Annexure P2 with the revision might be having relevance for a fair adjudication of the suit. Before the plaintiff could be permitted to place the said documents on record as additional evidence, he may also require to produce annexure P4 so as to establish as to how he came to possess the aforementioned four documents (Annexure P2) and also as to at what stage of the case he had been able to obtain them. However, letter dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure P- 3) has no relevance to the litigation. 6. However, letter dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure P- 3) has no relevance to the litigation. 6. Resultantly, the revision is accepted, impugned order dated 29.2.2008 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the application of the plaintiff for permission to bring on record the documents by way of additional evidence is allowed to the extent that he shall be at liberty to produce and prove documents attached as Annexures P2 and P4 with the present revision, details of which have been given in the preceding paras of the order.