Civil Revision No. 3234 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3234 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.5.2011 *** Smt. Ratti Devi & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Smt. Khazani .. Respondent with Civil Revision No. 3235 of 2011 *** Balwant & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Smt. Khazani .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. By this common order, both the above referred civil revisions are being disposed of. The facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Khazani Devi filed two separate suits against the respective petitioners herein for setting aside the judgments and decrees dated 29.11.1986 passed in Civil Suit No. 631 of 1986 and 632 of 1986 titled as Balwant etc. Vs. Smt. Prasanni and Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs. Smt. Prasanni respectively, on the ground that the same are null and void and based upon misrepresentation and fraud. The stand of the plaintiff taken therein is that on 27.11.1986 she had given birth of a male child and as such was not at Safidon where her alleged statement, on the basis of which decrees dated 29.11.1986 were passed, was recorded and according to her, her mother Smt. Prasanni was also attending her on that day. On the other hand, the petitioners-defendants took the plea that it Civil Revision No. 3234 of 2011 2 was the plaintiff herself who suffered the statement, leading of the passing of the aforesaid decrees. After the closure of the defendants' evidence, they filed an application seeking permission to lead the additional evidence to prove the fact that on 27.11.1986 plaintiff and her mother were very much present at Safidon and she had deposited an amount of Rs.15000/- in her account with the Post Office and getting the same opened and likewise her mother Smt. Prasanni also deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- in her account. They also claimed that this fact came into their knowledge after the closure of their evidence. Hence, to prove the aforesaid fact, they sought to summon the record pertaining to the post office Safidon in additional evidence. The plaintiff resisted the aforesaid plea on the ground that the aforesaid contention of defendants is false and is based on forged and fabricated documents, while they had not deposited any amount, as alleged. The plea of the defendants does not find favour with the learned trial Court and their applications, filed in the suits separately, have been dismissed, leading to the institution of the present civil revisions. Heard. The defence of the petitioners from the very beginning is that it were the plaintiff and her mother who appeared in the Court and consequently on the basis of their statements, the consent decrees were passed, while, as said above, this position has been controverted by the plaintiff. The factum of deposits made by the plaintiff and her mother, as alleged on 27.11.1986 with the Post Office cannot be said to be in the knowledge of everyone and from the facts of the case it cannot be said with certainty that this fact was in the knowledge of the defendants when their evidence was going on. Had this fact been in their knowledge, needless to say, that they would not have gained any benefit in not producing the same at the relevant time when their evidence was going on. Furthermore, if the defendants are permitted to lead additional evidence, no prejudice is going to the plaintiff, who obviously has a right not to cross-examine the witness but also to rebut the same by leading evidence in rebuttal. That apart, she can well be compensated with costs. Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance the cause of justice and not to scuttle Civil Revision No. 3234 of 2011 3 the same. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and orders, under challenge, are set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioners to produce additional evidence only qua the prayer made by them in their application subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/-, in each case. In case the cost is not paid on the next date of hearing fixed before the learned trial Court, the instant petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, she will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if she feel dissatisfied with this order, she may move an application to recall the same. A copy of this order be placed in CR No. 3235 of 2011. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 19, 2011 Jiten