Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2983 (PNJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. Paramjeet Singh (Since Deceased)

2023-10-10

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2023
JUDGMENT Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. CR-17598-CII-2017 In CR-5630-2017 And CR-25248-CII-2017 In CR-8234-2017 In view of the prayer made in the applications, which are supported by the affidavits, the same are allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The proposed legal representatives, named in para 3 of the applications, are the Class-I heirs of Sh. Paramjeet Singh (respondent No.1 In CR-5630-2017 and petitioner No.1 in CR-8234-2017), who is stated to have died on 17.05.2014. They are permitted to be brought on record as the legal heirs of late Sh. Paramjeet Singh, for the purpose of prosecuting and defending the aforementioned revision petitions only. CR-5630-2017 and CR-8234-2017 2. Through these two revision petitions, the correctness of the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, has been challenged. 3. In order to comprehend the issues arising in both these revision petitions, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. The plaintiff has filed a suit for the grant of decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.03.1995. Initially, the issues were framed on 14.09.2000, whereas, the additional issues were framed on 15.01.2003 and 23.08.2008, respectively. The plaintiff has led his evidence. However, the defendants have failed to lead any evidence. The civil suit was decreed on 02.06.2009. The first appeal preferred by the defendants was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on 17.10.2011. However, in the Regular Second Appeal No. 483 of 2012, the High Court remanded the case back to the trial Court with the following observations:- "This Court is conscious of the fact that the case pertains to the year 1999, but when it is apparent that defendant No.1 has been made to suffer because of the over anxiousness shown by learned trial Court in deciding the case so much so that he could produce no evidence and could not even examine himself, an opportunity to him to prove his defence is justified. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2009 passed by learned trial Court as well as the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2011 passed by learned first appellate Court are set aside. The case is remanded back to learned trial Court with the direction to grant adequate opportunity to the appellant-defendant No.1 to produce his evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2009 passed by learned trial Court as well as the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2011 passed by learned first appellate Court are set aside. The case is remanded back to learned trial Court with the direction to grant adequate opportunity to the appellant-defendant No.1 to produce his evidence. Not more than two effective opportunities would be allowed to him and the case shall be decided within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Since the main appeal itself has been allowed, all the accompanying applications stand disposed of accordingly." 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the defendants have been permitted to lead evidence. In order to avail an opportunity to lead counter evidence, the plaintiff has filed an application for summoning the following witnesses:- "i) Concerned clerk from the office of sub registrar Hoshiarpur along with mortgage deed dated 20.12.1994, Dastabez No.4661, bahi No.1, Zild No.1706, Page No.32, by Davinder Singh and Paramjit Singh both sons of Harkishan Singh in favour of State Bank of India Khuradpur, Distt Jalandhar. ii) Devi Dass Dhanota Waseeka Nabees Tehsil Complex Hoshiarpur along with register bearing entry No.806 of 20/12/1994, mortgaged by Davinder Singh and Paramjit Singh both sons of Harkishan Singh in favour of State Bank of India, Khuradpur, Distt. Jalandhar. iii) Concerned clerk/manager State Bank of India Branch Khuradpur, Distt. Hoshiarpur along with record of loan taken by Paramjit Singh son of Harkishan Singh son of Rikhi Singh, r/o Village Bohan, Distt. Hoshiarpur on 20.12.1994 and the Impugned order above said Paramjit Singh returned the loan to the bankin 1995-1996. iv) Concerned clerk from the office of Election Tehsildar Hoshiarpur along with Voter list of the year 1999 bearing Sr. No.47, Hoshiarpur (General) and 6 Hoshiarpur (General) and voter list of the year 1993 bearing Sr. No.47 and 6 (Hoshiarpur) of Village Bohan, HB No.295, Distt. Hoshiarpur." 5. The trial Court has permitted the plaintiff to tender into evidence, the certified copy of the registered mortgage deed dated 20.12.1994, certified copy of the bank record and certified copy of the voter list duly certified by the competent authority on the next date of hearing. On one hand, the grievances of the defendants is that the plaintiff cannot be granted any opportunity to lead the rebuttal evidence. On one hand, the grievances of the defendants is that the plaintiff cannot be granted any opportunity to lead the rebuttal evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the plaintiff submits that these documents are not per se admissible, therefore, they are required to be proved by examining the witnesses. The learned counsel further submits that the Court has erred only in permitting the plaintiff to produce the certified copy of the documents. He further submits that since the plaintiff is not a party to the aforesaid documents, therefore, it is not possible to get a certified copy thereof. 6. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties. Once, this Court, in the regular second appeal, permitted the defendants to lead evidence, a corresponding opportunity is required to be given to the plaintiff also to lead evidence and an opportunity is also given to rebut the evidence led by the defendants. In such circumstances, the trial Court was correct to that extent. However, the trial Court fell in error in refusing to permit the plaintiff to lead evidence to prove those documents. There is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel representing the defendants that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead rebuttal evidence particularly when the evidence sought to be led by the plaintiff is in response to the evidence led by the defendants pursuant to the order of remand by the High Court. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the Civil Revision No. 5630 of 2017 filed by the plaintiff shall stand allowed, whereas the Civil Revision No. 8234 of 2017 filed by the defendants shall stand dismissed. The impugned order shall stand modified. The plaintiff shall be permitted to lead evidence, as prayed for in the application dated 13.07.2017.