IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.2938 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:09.07.2013

Dr. Brig. (Retd.) Manmohan Singh son of Shri Sajjan Singh, resident of House No.5743, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.

....Petitioner.

Versus

Mrs. Manjit Manmohan Singh wife of Dr. Brig. (Retd.) Manmohan Singh, resident of House No.5873, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ----

Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes.

---

• 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
• 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.

---

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

1. The revision is against an order reviewing the earlier order passed by the trial Court that allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents. The parties are husband and wife. The suit was for a declaration in relation to a house property in Manimajra and for a declaration that some debt instrument purchased in the name of the defendant actually belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff

Civil Revision No.2938 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 -

gave evidence and closed his side. The defendant chose not to examine herself and the plaintiff would contend that the document which he wanted to confront could not be confronted to her. The application was therefore filed for reopening his case and allowing him to produce some documents which he claimed as rebutting the contention raised in defence. The documents were copies of plaint and statement and an affidavit given in earlier proceedings to which the defendant was a privy. After the documents were received, the defendant filed an application to review the order contending that the earlier order was passed by the Court on a judgment which was overruled and, therefore, the order passed by earlier order was liable to be reviewed. This plea of the defendant was allowed and it is this order which is in challenge in revision.

2. Before the case got underway, after eliciting the facts that gave rise to the revision, I asked the counsel for the defendant as to how he would have any objection to the admissibility of documents which were copies of pleadings and affidavits to which she was herself a party. The counsel argues that in a case where no evidence at all was led by the defendant, there was no scope for rebuttal. If these documents were stated to be brought on rebuttal, I would see them as documents brought only as additional evidence in which case the only point that will have to be examined is to see whether the order passed by the court below was justified and

Civil Revision No.2938 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 -

whether the documents which were taken as evidence on the side of the plaintiff were in any way inadmissible or irrelevant for the case. The counsel for the respondent has no objection either as regards the relevancy or the admissibility. If the reception of documents cannot be objected to on either one of the two grounds, an order that allowed for the documents to be brought on record could not have been subjected to any review in the manner done. The order impugned is clearly erroneous.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent refers me to a judgment rendered by this Court in Mohan Pal Singh and another Versus Karampal Singh and another-2010(4) RCR (Civil) 627 that held that when the plaintiff closed his evidence without reserving the right of rebuttal, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal. The plaintiff also cannot lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue on which the onus of proof was on the plaintiff. I have already held that even if the documents were not to be taken as rebuttal evidence, it ought to be taken as documents relevant as additional evidence before the Court. I directed the counsel to argue only on how the documents could not be received as additional evidence, if they were not to be rebuttal evidence. Courts are not without power to apply the appropriate provision to consider documents which are relevant for disposal of the case. We cannot quibble on legal niceties, if the ultimate goal is unravelling truth. If the plaintiff was

Civil Revision No.2938 of 2011 (O&M) - 4 -

therefore bringing to Court the documents which were statements of the defendant, he was verily entitled to, for admissions are the best piece of evidence against an adversary in litigation. If these documents would require to be countered in any way by the defendant, I will allow for an opportunity to the defendant to give her own evidence before the trial Court. If such a request is made, the plaintiff shall not be heard on any objections that she has forfeited her right to give such evidence. The evidence which the defendant is permitted to give shall be on the documents brought by the plaintiff additionally and which were received by the trial Court subsequently. The impugned order is set aside and the revision petition is allowed with the above observations.

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE

09.07.2013 sanjeev