CR No.2383/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2383/2011 Date of decision: 27.04.2011. Harpreet Singh Sidhu and others ....................Petitioners v. Mohanpal Singh and another .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Chetan Mittal,Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishal Garg,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sandeep Khunger,Advocate for the Caveators/ respondents. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 28.3.2011 whereby their application under Section 151 for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. In brief the facts are that dispute is between brothers with regard to share in the property alleged to be a joint property described in the suit. It is not in dispute that suit was filed on 29.10.1999 and after framing of issues the plaintiffs closed their evidence on 2.11.2007 whereas the defendants closed their evidence on 15.1.2010. It is also CR No.2383/2011 2 not in dispute that on the attempt of plaintiffs/petitioners to lead certain evidence in rebuttal, an application was preferred by the defendants/respondents for dis-allowing the proposed evidence to be led in rebuttal. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial court on 25.5.2010. The defendants filed CR No.4273/2010 against the said dismissal and this Court vide judgment dated 10.9.2010 held that the proposed evidence could not be led by the plaintiffs in rebuttal on issues the onus to prove which was on them. It is thereafter, that another application dated 11.10.2010(P6) under Section 151 CPC was preferred by the plaintiffs for leading additional evidence on the pretext that the same is relevant for complete and effective decision of the lis between the parties. By way of the said application the plaintiffs had proposed to lead the following additional evidence:- “(a) Certified copy of Court Civil Suit Register no.1 pertaining to Civil Suit No.370-1 of 5.9.1980 titled as Gurlal Singh v. Mohinder Kaur and others. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure P-9. (b) Mutation NO.2169 sanctioned on the basis of decision in the above titled civil suit. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure P-10. (c)Certified copy of statement of Gurlal Singh recorded on 9.9.2010 in the Court of S.Kawaljit Singh, PCS, learned Additional Civil Judge CR No.2383/2011 3 (Senior Division) Sri Muktsar Sahib in a suit titled as Gurlal Singh v. Karampal Singh suit no.376 dated 24.12.2007 pending in the above said Hon'ble Court for 11.10.2010. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure P-11. (d) Secondary evidence for proving the photocopies of documents pertaining to the suit property from the official record of the Government Rehabilitation Department that had originally allotted the suit property which is the subject mater of the present suit. This issue was kept open and is still pending for orders of this Hon'ble Court. (e) Expert evidence regarding the alleged partition draft dated 1968 and produced by the defendants in their affirmative evidence. (f) copy of Jamabandi of village Goniana for the year 2005-06.” The said application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 28.3.2011. In the present revision petition the primary grievance made by the plaintiffs is that the learned trial court has illegally and erroneously declined the prayer on the ground that the proposed evidence was declined to be led uptil the High Court in the aforesaid CR No.2383/2011 4 Civil Revision no.4273/2010. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that para meters for permitting the additional evidence are entirely different and the same have not been considered by the trial court while deciding the application. Reliance has been placed upon Jagdish Kumar v. Manjit Kaur 2010(3)Civ.CC 606; Hans Raj v. Surinder Kaur and others 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 0377; Basant Raj v. Kaushal Kishore (2005-3) The Punjab Law Reporter 76; Shyam Gopal Bindal and others v. Land Acquisition Officer and another (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 316. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Chhida Ram and others v. Rishi Raj and another 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 672l; Harnek Singh and others v. Bachan Kaur 2010(7) RCR (Civil) 287, Paramjit Kaur v. Gurbinder Singh and others (CR No.5957 of 2010 decided on 23.9./2010. Though the learned counsel for the parties are relying on different judgments, however, on instructions from their clients, who are present in court, they are agreed that impugned order dated 28.3.2011 is silent on the consideration of the parameters of permitting the leading of additional evidence. They have no objection if the impugned order dated 28.3.2011 is set aside and the the learned trial court is directed to decide the application afresh in view of the settled position of law relating to permitting of additional evidence. In view of the agreed stand between the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 28.3.2011 is set aside and the CR No.2383/2011 5 learned trial court is directed to decide the application (P6) afresh by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Disposed of in the above terms. 27.04.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge