C.R. No. 2412 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2412 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.08.2009 Sham Sundri age 57 years wife of Sh. Som Nath, resident of H. No. 2, Guru Amar Dass Nagar, village Sunet, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Hardev Singh son of S. Labh Singh son of Nathu, resident of Amar Dass Colony, Village Sunet, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. 2. Darshan Singh son of Sher Singh son of Ishar Singh, resident of Harkrishanpura, Near New Bus Stand, Railway Colony No. 7, Ludhiana. 3. Gurdeep Kaur wife of Inderjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, 53- A, Ahluwalia Street, Millerganj, Ludhiana. 4. Balwinder Kaur wife of Joginder Singh son of Bishan Singh, resident of 3004, Chet Singh Nagar, Street No. 10, Ludhiana. 5. The Tehsildar, Ludhiana East. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. B.P.S. Gill, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Respondents No. 3 and 5, already exparte. Service of respondents No. 1, 2, and 4, dispensed with, as they were exparte, in the trial Court. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of C.R. No. 2412 of 2008 2 India, is directed, against the order dated 18.01.08, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which, the application moved by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, for adducing additional evidence, in the shape of production and proof of sale deeds, was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction. The defendants/respondents, were proceeded against ex-parte. After the evidence was closed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, and the case was fixed for arguments, an application for additional evidence, was moved, for producing and proving the documents, referred to above. That application was dismissed, vide order dated 18.01.08. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, no doubt, the application for additional evidence, was moved, at a late stage, but the documents, which the revision-petitioner, wanted to produce, by way of additional evidence, could not be said to be forged and fabricated. He further submitted that the trial Court, thus, illegally dismissed the application for additional evidence, though the same was essential for the just decision of the case. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. No doubt, the application for additional evidence, was filed, at C.R. No. 2412 of 2008 3 a late stage, when the case was fixed for arguments. The documents, which were sought to be produced and proved, by way of additional evidence, were essential, for the just decision of the case. The mere fact that the Counsel for the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was negligent, and, therefore, did not produce and get proved the aforesaid documents, at the relevant time, does not mean that the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, should be penalized to such an extent, as to deny him the substantial justice. The paramount consideration of every Court, is to grant substantial justice. When the procedural wrangles and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter will prevail over the former. The order impugned suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order is liable to be set aside. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the order dated 18.01.08, is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-, to be deposited with the District Legal Aid Services Authority, Ludhiana. Only after depositing the costs, on or before 04.09.09, the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, shall be entitled to lead additional evidence, referred to above, within two hearings. The plaintiff/revision-petitioner, is directed to appear, in the trial Court, on 04.09.09, at 10.00 AM. 19.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE