Satinder Kaur Vs. Joginder Kaur and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1057435
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2013
AppellantSatinder Kaur
RespondentJoginder Kaur and ors.
Excerpt:
c.r.no.6511 o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh c.r.no.6511 of 2010 date of decision :04. 07.2013 satinder kaur ....petitioner v/s joginder kaur & ors....respondents before : hon'ble mr.justice rajan gupta present: mr.satpreet grewal kapila, advocate for the petitioner. mr.h.s.dhindsa, advocate for the respondents. rajan gupta j. (oral) present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the trial court whereby plaintiff has not been allowed to prove certain documents in rebuttal evidence and same have been ordered to be struck off from the file. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff has every right to lead evidence in rebuttal regarding the endorsement on agreement to sell wherein extension of time for completing the contract was granted. plea has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. he submits that no such endorsement was ever made on the agreement. a witness pw7, (jail official) appeared during the plaintiff’s evidence and his deposition clearly shows that there could have been no endorsement on the agreement to sell. he further contends that in rebuttal evidence, plaintiff could not be c.r.no.6511 o”2. allowed to prove document exhibit rpw2/a by examining a witness namely malkiat singh. i have heard learned counsel for the parties. plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit for joint possession of land as described in the plaint. alternatively, she prayed for recovery of `5,56,960/- as earnest money and damages. after institution of suit, plaintiff and defendants both lead their respective evidence. at the stage of rebuttal evidence, plaintiff produced another witness namely malkiat singh who deposed as rpw1 and placed on record document exhibit rpw2/a. an application was moved by the defendants for striking off aforesaid evidence as same being beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence. trial court came to the conclusion that rpw1 had not deposed merely to rebut the evidence lead by defendant on issues no.3, 4 & 5 but had come up with fresh evidence. it, thus, found that plaintiff could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal to prove endorsement over agreement dated 15.04.1999. this document exhibit rpw2/a could not be allowed to be placed on record as it was beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence. i find no legal infirmity with the order. there is no scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction. dismissed. july 04, 2013 (rajan gupta) ajay judge
Judgment:

C.R.No.6511 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6511 of 2010 Date of decision :

04. 07.2013 Satinder Kaur ....Petitioner V/s Joginder Kaur & ors....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the respondents.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

(ORAL) Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the trial court whereby plaintiff has not been allowed to prove certain documents in rebuttal evidence and same have been ordered to be struck off from the file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff has every right to lead evidence in rebuttal regarding the endorsement on agreement to sell wherein extension of time for completing the contract was granted.

Plea has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.

He submits that no such endorsement was ever made on the agreement.

A witness PW7, (jail official) appeared during the plaintiff’s evidence and his deposition clearly shows that there could have been no endorsement on the agreement to sell.

He further contends that in rebuttal evidence, plaintiff could not be C.R.No.6511 o”

2. allowed to prove document Exhibit RPW2/A by examining a witness namely Malkiat Singh.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Plaintiff-petitioner instituted a suit for joint possession of land as described in the plaint.

Alternatively, she prayed for recovery of `5,56,960/- as earnest money and damages.

After institution of suit, plaintiff and defendants both lead their respective evidence.

At the stage of rebuttal evidence, plaintiff produced another witness namely Malkiat Singh who deposed as RPW1 and placed on record document Exhibit RPW2/A.

An application was moved by the defendants for striking off aforesaid evidence as same being beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence.

Trial court came to the conclusion that RPW1 had not deposed merely to rebut the evidence lead by defendant on issues No.3, 4 & 5 but had come up with fresh evidence.

It, thus, found that plaintiff could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal to prove endorsement over agreement dated 15.04.1999.

This document Exhibit RPW2/A could not be allowed to be placed on record as it was beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence.

I find no legal infirmity with the order.

There is no scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

July 04, 2013 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE