C.R. No.8397 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8397 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 23.12.2010 Rajbir Singh .....Petitioner Versus Ram Prasad ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Rajpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.32611-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. Plaintiff-Rajbir Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 10.12.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad thereby partly allowing and partly dismissing application Annexure P-2 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for additional evidence. Plaintiff-petitioner filed suit against defendant-respondent on 09.09.2002. In application Annexure P-2, the plaintiff alleged that parties had effected amicable settlement Annexure P-4 on 22.09.2002. The plaintiff moved application for proving the said compromise by way of additional evidence. This prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner has been declined by the trial Court. The plaintiff petitioner also wanted to exhibit a site plan as per affidavit of his C.R. No.8397 of 2010 (O & M) -2- examination-in-chief and the said prayer has been allowed by the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to prove compromise Annexure P-4. The contention is completely devoid of merit and is unacceptable. As noticed hereinbefore, the suit was instituted on 09.09.2002 and alleged settlement Annexure P-4 was effected on 22.09.2002 i.e only a few days after the institution of the suit. According to alleged compromise, proceedings in the suit were to terminate immediately in view of the settlement. If such settlement had actually been effected between the parties, there is no reason why still the plaintiff-petitioner would have continued to pursue the suit for long 8 years after the alleged settlement. On the contrary, the plaintiff would have immediately moved application in the trial court for recording the said settlement and for disposing of the suit according to compromise. However, no such application has been moved till date for recording the compromise. On the contrary, the alleged compromise saw the light of the day for the first time after 8 years during cross-examination of defendant when he was confronted with photostat copy of the alleged compromise. There is no reason why the alleged compromise was withheld from the Court for 8 long years. In addition to the aforesaid, proposed additional evidence is completely beyond pleadings. There is no pleading by way of application or in any other manner for recording of the compromise. C.R. No.8397 of 2010 (O & M) -3- In other words, there is no pleading that any such compromise has been effected between the parties. Consequently, additional evidence to prove the alleged compromise cannot be permitted. There is another significant aspect of the matter. The alleged compromise took place on 22.09.2002. However, much thereafter, on 11.10.2002 as well as on 24.04.2003, learned counsel for the parties sought adjournment in the trial Court for effecting compromise. This circumstance completely negatives the plaintiff's version that compromise had already been effected on 22.09.2002. If compromise had taken place on 22.09.2002, adjournments would not have been sought thereafter on 11.10.2002 and 24.04.2003 for effecting compromise. The application for additional evidence has also been moved at the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments. The alleged compromise was never disclosed either in affirmative evidence of the plaintiff or at any other stage except at the fag end of the trial during cross-examination of the defendant. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The plaintiff's prayer for additional evidence to prove the alleged compromise has been rightly declined by the Trial Court. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. 23.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE