Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 156 (PNJ)

Rajiv Mahajan v. Sanjeev Kumar Mahajan

2014-01-17

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are that, initially Sanjeev Kumar Mahajan son of Moti Lal Mahajan, respondent No.1-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) has instituted the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Moti Lal Mahajan(since deceased) now being represented by his LRs including petitioner Rajiv Mahajan and other respondents-defendants(for short “the defendants”), from demolishing or causing damage to building of the factory, in question, along with machinery, situated in plot bearing No.14, Industrial Estate, Yamuna Nagar. The defendants contested the suit, filed the written statement, stoutly denied the allegations contained in it and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the case was slated for rebuttal evidence and arguments. During the pendency of the civil suit, petitioner-defendant No.1 moved the application for producing and proving certain documents mentioned therein by way of additional evidence. The plaintiff refuted the claim of the defendant No.1, filed the reply and prayed for dismissal of the application. 3. Taking into consideration the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant No.1, by virtue of impugned order dated 10.12.2012(Annexure P-4). 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendant No.1 has preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant revision petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff has filed the civil suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from demolishing or causing damage to building of the factory along with machinery. The application for additional evidence filed by petitionerdefendant No.1, was dismissed by the trial Court by way of impugned order(Annexure P-4). The main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court to decline the prayer of defendant No.1 were that, some of the documents now sought to be exhibited, are already on record and were in his knowledge, additional evidence cannot be allowed to produce the documents and he has already availed many opportunities to conclude his evidence. The main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court to decline the prayer of defendant No.1 were that, some of the documents now sought to be exhibited, are already on record and were in his knowledge, additional evidence cannot be allowed to produce the documents and he has already availed many opportunities to conclude his evidence. Here to me, the trial Court appears to have committed a legal mistake in this relevant context. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that, some of the documents now sought to be exhibited, are already on record. According to petitioner defendant No.1, he was not aware about the technicalities of producing/exhibiting the documents in evidence. Inadvertently, his counsel did not exhibit the documents. Meaning thereby, petitionerdefendant No.1 was not at all at fault and it was his counsel who was required to produce/exhibit the documents. It is now well-settled proposition of law that a party cannot be permitted to suffer on account of inaction or negligence on the part of his counsel. 8. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation between the parties and the explanation put-forth by the petitioner-defendant No.1, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to him to produce the indicated documents by way of additional evidence. To me, the production of documents is essential, to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiff, particularly when, he can well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant connection. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P-4) is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more effective opportunity to the petitioner-defendant No.1, to produce and prove the indicated documents by way of additional evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as compensatory costs, to be paid by petitioner-defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. At the same time, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiff. Above all, the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) as compensatory costs, to be paid by petitioner-defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. At the same time, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the plaintiff. Above all, the payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further defence of the case. Needless to mention that the instant order has been rendered only in the peculiar facts & special circumstances of this case and would not be relevant precedent in any other case.