C. R. No. 5222 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Sr. No. 110 Case No. : C. R. No. 5222 of 2013 Date of Decision : Aug. 29, 2013 [ENTITY] and others Petitioners Vs. [ENTITY] Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] * * * Present : Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Advocate with Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioners. * * * [ENTITY], J. (Oral) :
By filing this revision petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT], defendants (including legal representatives of defendants no. 1 and 3) have assailed order dated 26.07.2013, passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-8) filed by respondent-plaintiff for removing affidavits of Bahadur Singh (DW-4) and another Bahadur Singh - deed-writer (DW-6) as well as parts of affidavits of [ENTITY] - defendant no. 2 as DW-1 and [ENTITY] - defendant no. 4 as DW-2, alleging that the said affidavits referring to transfer deed and sale deeds dated 01.12.2008 are beyond pleadings.
Defendants, by filing reply (Annexure P-9), opposed the application and controverted the averments made therein.
Learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 26.07.2013, has allowed application (Annexure P-8) filed by the plaintiff and has ordered discarding of affidavits of DW-4 and DW-6 and part of affidavits of DW-1 and DW-2. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this revision petition to assail the said order.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
Admittedly, offending evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses relating to transfer deed and sale deeds dated 01.12.2008 (having taken place during pendency of the suit) is beyond pleadings. Consequently, the said evidence has been rightly ordered to be discarded by the trial court being beyond pleadings.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the transfer deed and sale deeds in question were executed during pendency of the suit. However, even if it be so, the defendants could lead evidence relating to the same only by making appropriate pleading regarding the same, may be by amendment of written statement, if so permissible in accordance with law, because the written statement had been filed prior to the said transactions. However, in absence of any pleadings, the defendants cannot be permitted to lead evidence regarding the said documents. The question, whether the said transactions are hit by doctrine of lis pendens, is not relevant for the disposal of this revision petition and can be raised before trial court at appropriate stage.
Counsel for the petitioners, relying on two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and also on a judgment of this Court [PRECEDENT], contended that objections regarding evidence being beyond pleadings can be raised at the final stage of the disposal of the suit and not at the stage of leading evidence. The contention cannot be accepted. No such proposition has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of [PRECEDENT] (supra) and [PRECEDENT] (supra). Judgment of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra) is also completely distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, the evidence regarding transfer deed and sale deeds dated 01.12.2008 is completely beyond pleadings, and therefore, has rightly been ordered to be discarded by the trial court.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that there is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Aug. 29, 2013 ( [ENTITY] ) [ENTITY] JUDGE