Civil Revision No. 3863 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3863 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 05, 2010 Madan Lal .....Petitioner Versus M/s Zimidara Traders ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The defendant-petitioner is in revision aggrieved against the order dated 14.5.2010 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application for additional evidence was declined. By virtue of the said application, the petitioner wishes to produce in evidence copy of the judgment in a case filed by the plaintiff against one Mohinder Singh. The Court found that the said judgment has no relevancy with the present case and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to tender such judgment in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the judgment inter-partes may not be relevant within Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short `the Act’), but the Civil Revision No. 3863 of 2010 [2] same is admissible in terms of Section 13 of the Act. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah, (1998)3 SCC 331 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported as Sohan Singh v. Murti Rani and others, 2008(2) PLR 591. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 13 of the Act, upon which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:- “13. Facts relevant when right or custom is in question- Where the question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following facts are relevant:- (a) Any transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted, or denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence; (b) particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognized, or exercised or in which its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.” From the aforesaid, it is apparent that in terms of Section 13 of the Act, where the question is as regards the existence of any right or custom, then the transaction by which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted or denied, is relevant. The petitioner seeks to produce the judgment in another case filed the plaintiff against Mohinder Singh, wherein a finding was recorded that the plaintiff does not maintain true, regular and correct Civil Revision No. 3863 of 2010 [3] account books, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount due from the defendant. In Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams’s case (supra), the issue was of the title of the plaintiff recognized in the earlier suit. The plaintiff was relying upon such judgment as evidence. In the reported case, the Court found that the judgment inter-partes, is admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Act as evidence of assertion of a right to property in dispute. In Sohan Singh's case, the question was whether the plaintiff, who was claiming right of a mortgagor under a Will has a right to file suit for possession by way of redemption. It was found that in a suit amongst the legal heirs, it has been held that the plaintiff is the legal heir. Thus, in a suit for redemption though the mortgagee was not party, such judgment is relevant. In the present case, the previous judgment does not deal with existence of any right or custom. Therefore, the previous judgment has been rightly not found to be relevant, which can be permitted to be tendered by the petitioner by way of additional evidence. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE August 05, 2010 ds