Khazan Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1140311
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-14-2014
AppellantKhazan Singh
RespondentSanjay Kumar and Another
Excerpt:
cr no.3401 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cr no.3401 of 2014 date of decision: 14.05.2014 khazan singh ....petitioner versus sanjay kumar and another ....respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rajiv narain raina present: mr.sudhir aggarwal, advocate, for the petitioner. 1. to be referred to the reporters or not?. 2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rajiv narain raina, j.(oral) this petition arises out of a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell suit property. if it is not disputed that the plaintiff's evidence is being recorded and has not been closed by court order then he would have a right to lead evidence in the manner he likes to enable him to prove his case. the petitioner is the plaintiff. his application for taking the thumb impression/signature of defendant no.1 for comparison with the agreement to sell dated november 7, 2005 executed by sanjay kumar/defendant no.1 has been turned down for the reason that the case is an old one and the application for production of a handwriting expert has been filed belatedly. the learned additional civil judge (senior division).mewat in the order dated april 25, 2014 has reasoned that plaintiff wants to fill up lacunas in his evidence. the question of filling a lacuna would arise after the evidence is concluded and the statements of the witnesses in mittal manju 2014.05.16 14:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr no.3401 of 2014 -2- support of a decree and thereafter an attempt is made to improve the case and fill up lacuna through additional evidence etc.but that situation has not arisen in this case. if the plaintiff's evidence continues to be recorded then he would have right to lead evidence as he thinks fit to enable him to prove facts pleaded in order to secure entitlement to a decree. no notice to the respondents is absolutely necessary as their evidence is yet to start and they would not be prejudiced by this order in case the petitioner is allowed to lead his remaining evidence of an expert. issuing notice would also delay the proceedings without any just cause of valid justification. i have no hesitation in allowing this petition. the impugned order dated april 25, 2014 is set aside. the application stands allowed. further steps be taken by the parties accordingly before the learned trial judge. (rajiv narain raina) judge1405.2014 manju mittal manju 2014.05.16 14:06 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CR No.3401 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3401 of 2014 Date of Decision: 14.05.2014 Khazan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Sanjay Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral) This petition arises out of a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell suit property.

If it is not disputed that the plaintiff's evidence is being recorded and has not been closed by Court order then he would have a right to lead evidence in the manner he likes to enable him to prove his case.

The petitioner is the plaintiff.

His application for taking the thumb impression/signature of defendant No.1 for comparison with the agreement to sell dated November 7, 2005 executed by Sanjay Kumar/defendant No.1 has been turned down for the reason that the case is an old one and the application for production of a handwriting expert has been filed belatedly.

The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division).Mewat in the order dated April 25, 2014 has reasoned that plaintiff wants to fill up lacunas in his evidence.

The question of filling a lacuna would arise after the evidence is concluded and the statements of the witnesses in Mittal Manju 2014.05.16 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.3401 of 2014 -2- support of a decree and thereafter an attempt is made to improve the case and fill up lacuna through additional evidence etc.But that situation has not arisen in this case.

If the plaintiff's evidence continues to be recorded then he would have right to lead evidence as he thinks fit to enable him to prove facts pleaded in order to secure entitlement to a decree.

No notice to the respondents is absolutely necessary as their evidence is yet to start and they would not be prejudiced by this order in case the petitioner is allowed to lead his remaining evidence of an expert.

Issuing notice would also delay the proceedings without any just cause of valid justification.

I have no hesitation in allowing this petition.

The impugned order dated April 25, 2014 is set aside.

The application stands allowed.

Further steps be taken by the parties accordingly before the learned trial Judge.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE1405.2014 manju Mittal Manju 2014.05.16 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh