In CR-1518-2020 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Additional evidence cannot be permitted to be led to fill in lacuna in case: P&H HC
Justice Alka Sarin [20-01-2023]

Read Order: Sikandar Singh (deceased) through LR and Another v. Paramjit Singh and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 21, 2023: While dealing with a revision petition filed against the order of the Trial Court whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioners for leading additional evidence was dismissed, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that additional evidence cannot be permitted to be led to fill in the lacuna in the case. 

“It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioners that the relevant documents are already on the record and the only explanation which has been given before this Court for wanting to examine the said witness is so that the defendant-respondents crossexamine the said witness. This cannot be a ground for permitting additional evidence”,  the Bench of Justice Alka Sarin held. 

The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that they were the owners of the suit land and that the alleged sale deed (allegedly executed by the second plaintiff-petitioner in favour of the first two defendant-respondents) was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-petitioners as also for a permanent injunction. 

The plaintiffs' case was that the second plaintiff was mentally challenged and dumb since birth and that the defendant-respondents in connivance with each other got executed the sale deed in question by taking advantage of his state of mind. 

It was averred by the plaintiff that they moved a petition under Sections 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 for appointing a guardian of the person and property of the second plaintiff. After observation and examination, the doctor observed that the second plaintiff was unfit and needed a guardian. Dr Sudha Vasudev appeared before the District Judge and proved the report. The real brother of the second plaintiff was appointed as his guardian. 

Though the report of Dr Sudha Vasudev was produced during cross-examination conducted by the defendant-respondents and also placed on the judicial file, however, by way of the present application for additional evidence the plaintiff-petitioners sought to produce Dr. Sudha Vasudev as a witness. 

The said application was contested by the defendant-respondents on the ground that it had been filed only to linger the proceedings as the said report. It was further the contention that the plaintiff-petitioners availed 29 effective opportunities and closed their evidence thereafter. It was further the contention that the present was the second application for additional evidence and that the report was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioners at the time of even filing the first application for additional evidence. 

Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the said application for additional evidence moved by the plaintiff-petitioners. Hence, the present civil revision petition. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the plaintiff-petitioners chose firstly not to lead the said evidence in the affirmative while leading their evidence and even subsequently they chose not to lead the said evidence when the first application for additional evidence was filed by them. Further, from a perusal of the present application for additional evidence, the Court observed that the same was totally bereft of any reasoning as to why the said witness could not be examined earlier. 

“Additional evidence cannot be permitted to be led to fill-in the lacuna in the case”, the Bench added. 

It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioners that the relevant documents were already on the record and the only explanation which was given before this Court for wanting to examine the said witness was so that the defendant-respondents cross-examine the said witness. 

“This cannot be a ground for permitting additional evidence”, the Court held while dismissing the petition.