Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2861 (PNJ)

Surinder Kumar Singal v. Raj Kumar Singal

2019-10-30

RITU BAHRI

body2019
Judgment Ms. Ritu Bahri, J.:-Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30.09.2019(Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh,whereby application filed by plaintiff-petitioner for placing on recordreplication, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the zimni orderdated 28.05.2019, whereby after filing of the written statement, case wasadjourned to 26.07.2019 for fiing of replication, if any, and for proposedissues. Thereafter, on 26.07.2019, case was adjourned to 06.09.2019 as thePresiding Officer was on leave. On 06.09.2019 replication was not filed,however, issues were framed by the trial Court. Thereafter, on the next dateof hearing i.e. 30.09.2019, plaintiff-petitioner moved an application forplacing on record replication. This application has been dismissed on thesame day vide impugned order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) on theground that the trial is at the stage of recording of evidence of plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgmentspassed by this Court in Harbhajan Singh Bajwa vs. Jasdev Singh, 2015 (5)RCR (Civil) 589 and Seema Rani vs. Kuldip Singh and another, [2018(1) Law herald (P&H) 894] on the proposition that even, if, issues are framed,replication can be taken on record. At best, it would be a case ofirregularity in the procedure. 4. In the case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra), while consideringthe above said issue, in para no.26, the Court observed as under:- “26. Therefore, from the above, I find that no illegality has beencommitted by the Court below while passing the impugned order.However, from the perusal of the order, it is clear that earlier itwas written that the case be fixed for replication and issues, butthe issues were framed on the same day without asking for thereplication. Therefore, it is observed that an opportunity to filereplication should be given to the plaintiff and if on filing of thereplication, the Court feels that any fresh issue arises, then theCourt would be at liberty to frame any fresh issue.” 5. Thereafter, in Seema Rani’s case (supra), revision petition wasfiled challenging the order, whereby an application for filing replication hadbeen allowed by the trial Court. The said revision was dismissed byobserving that issues were framed on 14.08.2017 and thereafter, the casewas fixed for evidence of plaintiff. At the stage of evidence of plaintiff,application to file replication was allowed vide order dated 21.09.2017. The said revision was dismissed byobserving that issues were framed on 14.08.2017 and thereafter, the casewas fixed for evidence of plaintiff. At the stage of evidence of plaintiff,application to file replication was allowed vide order dated 21.09.2017. Itwas observed that merely pleadings had been completed and no irregularitywas committed in allowing such application at the later stage. 6. Keeping in view the above two judgments, in the facts of thepresent case, this Court is of the view that immediately after framing ofissues on 06.09.2019, plaintiff-petitioner moved an application to place onrecord replication and this application has been wrongly dismissed by thetrial Court vide impugned order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-1). Hence,the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-1)is set aside and replication is allowed to be placed on record. After takingon record the replication, trial Court will proceed further in accordance withlaw.