CR-355-2021 (O [320] Sadhu Sing M/s Sande Commissio Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] 02.02.2021 whereby an has been al [2] recovery a statement d that the pla [3] learned Tri (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA CR-355-20 Date of De u Singh versus Sandeep Kumar Sanjeev Kumar mission Agents and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Ad Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition .2021 passed by learned Addl. Civil eby an application filed by the plaintif een allowed. Plaintiff claims to be a registe ery against the defendants-petitione ment denied the status of the plaintiff he plaintiff was not entitled to maintai Parties went to trial on the ed Trial Court on 18.12.2017:- “1. Whether the pla principal amount interest, as praye T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 2021 (O&M) of Decision : 14.01.2026 …Petitioner ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate with Mr. Harmeet Singh ocate for respondent No.1. tition is directed against Order date Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aboha laintiff for leading additional evidenc registered firm, who has filed a suit fo etitioner. Defendants in the writte aintiff as a registered firm and claim aintain the suit. the following issues framed by th plaintiff is entitled to recover ount of Rs.9,13,643.15/- along with rayed for? OPP 1 Singh, er dated Abohar, vidence suit for written med by the ver with RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-355-2021 (O [4] evidence to application same was o not mainta diligence w [5] by placing ‘K.K. Velu 1000. [6] defendants Trial Cour Velusamy’ invoking S that once t which was cover up th submission (O&M) 2. Whether the su limitation? OPP 3. Whether the su maintainable in i 4. Whether the plain locus standi to file 5. Relief. ” Plaintiff while leading evidenc nce to prove its status as a register cation seeking permission to lead add was opposed by the petitioner-defend aintainable at a belated stage after ence while leading evidence. Learned Trial Court vide impu acing reliance upon the ratio of law la . Velusamy versus N. Palanisamy’, Learned Senior Counsel appe dants has assailed the impugned orde Court completely misread the rat samy’s case (supra). Party cannot be king Section 151 CPC for leading a once the plaintiff failed to prove its h was specifically denied by the defe r up the lacuna by moving the presen issions, reliance has been placed up suit of the plaintiff is within PP suit of the plaintiff is not in its present form? OPD plaintiff has no cause of action or o file the present suit? OPD vidence failed to produce documentar egistered firm. Later on, the prese ad additional evidence was filed. Th defendants, claiming that the same wa e after plaintiff failed to exercise du e impugned order has allowed the sam law laid down by the Supreme Court my’, reported as 2011 AIR SC (Civi l appearing on behalf of the petitione d order. He contends that the learne he ratio of law laid down in K.K not be allowed to fill up the lacuna ing additional evidence. He submi e its status of being a registered firm e defendants, he cannot be allowed present application. In support of h ced upon the judgment of the Suprem 2 thin not or mentary present d. The me was cise due he same Court in (Civil) titioner- learned K.K. cuna by submits ed firm, owed to rt of his upreme RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-355-2021 (O Court in ‘K SC (Civil) versus Sm versus Raj and sons and other Gramo Ud (Civil) 512 others’, 20 [7] submits tha on the part evidence b learned Tri [8] through rec [9] firm. By w documentar by the Tria to the root Velusamy' evidence a observed (O&M) ‘K.K. Velusamy versus N. Palan Civil) 1000 as well as the judgments o s Smt. Sarla and another’, 2017(1) s Raj Kumar and others’, 2013(54) sons (HUF) and others versus M/s others’, 2019(3) PLJ 136, ‘M/s S o Udyog Mandal versus Ajmer Sin il) 512, and ‘Surjit Singh and oth , 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537. Per contra, learned counse its that the documents could not be p part of the counsel. The same have nce being in form of the documents ed Trial Court. I have heard counsel for the gh records of the case. Plaintiff instituted recovery s By way of additional evidence pla mentary evidence to prove the registra e Trial Court though has no bearing o e root of maintainability of the suit. Su samy's case (supra) while dealing nce and the circumstances in whic rved as under :- “15. xxx xxx The courts below have not ap Palanisamy’, reported as 2011 AI ents of this Court in ‘M/s Satyam Ste 17(1) RCR (Civil) 902, ‘Ram Kuma 13(54) RCR (Civil) 308, ‘V.K. Mantr s M/s Select Global Hotel Pvt. Lt M/s Shree Sangmeshwar Mahade er Singh and another’, 2014(49) RC d others versus Jagtar Singh an counsel for the respondents-plainti t be produced owing to the negligenc have direct bearing on the issues. Th ents have been rightly allowed by th for the parties and have carefully gon very suit claiming to be a partnersh ce plaintiff wants to bring on recor egistration. Additional evidence allowe ring on the merits of the case, but goe suit. Supreme Court in the case of K.K ealing with the scope of addition which the same can be allowe ot applied their minds to the questio 3 11 AIR m Steel Kumar Mantro t. Ltd. ahadev 9) RCR gh and plaintiff gligence es. The d by the lly gone tnership record allowed but goes K.K. ditional lowed estion RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-355-2021 (O (O&M) whether such evidence will be justice require permission to l order calls for interference. 16. We may add a word of c 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of th routinely, merely for the aski very purpose of various ame trials. But where the applicat where the additional evidence the court to clarify the eviden rendering justice, and the cou earlier was for valid and su exercise its discretion to recal evidence. But if it does so, i does not become a protractin award appropriate costs to th the delay. Secondly the court case within a fixed time sched Thirdly if the application i frivolous, or to cover up neg rejected with heavy costs. If t evidence is permitted and evidence was not genuine or reopening of the case recallin ground for awarding exemp prosecution if it involves fab had an opportunity to produce do so or if the evidence alrea or if it comes to the conclusion is merely to protract the pro the application. If the eviden electronic record, the court before granting or rejecting th ll be relevant and whether the ends to let in such evidence. Therefore th of caution. The power under sectio of the Code is not intended to be use asking. If so used, it will defeat th amendments to the Code to expedi lication is found to be bona fide an ence, oral or documentary, will assi idence on the issues and will assist court is satisfied that non-product d sufficient reasons, the court ma ecall the witnesses or permit the fres so, it should ensure that the proce acting tactic. The court should first to the other party to compensate fo ourt should take up and complete th schedule so that the delay is avoide on is found to be mischievous, o negligence or lacunae, it should b . If the application is allowed and th nd ultimately the court finds th or relevant and did not warrant th alling the witnesses, it can be made emplary costs apart from orderin fabrication of evidence. If the par duce such evidence earlier but did n lready led is clear and unambiguou usion that the object of the applicatio proceedings, the court should reje idence sought to be produced is a t may also listen to the recordin ng the application.” 4 nds of re the ection e used at the pedite e and assist sist in uction t may fresh rocess firstly te for te the oided. us, or uld be nd the s that nt the ade a dering party id not guous, cation reject is an ording RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-355-2021 (O [10] required to evidence on present cas the same tim evidence order to ba subject to [11] ordered to b [12] disposed of 14.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma/Po (O&M) As per the ratio of law refer ired to test the case of applicant seek nce on the touchstone of relevance co nt case the negligence on part of the a ame time the Court cannot be obliviou is not only relevant but shall aid r to balance the equities, the Trial C to payment of costs of ₹ 2,000/-. Finding no merits in the pres red to be dismissed. All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 /Pooja Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable referred to hereinabove, the Court t seeking permission to lead addition nce coupled with ends of justice. In th f the applicant-plaintiff is evident but livious of the fact that the documentar ll aid the Court in imparting justice. I rial Court has allowed the applicatio e present revision petition, the same neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 Court is ditional In the but at mentary stice. In lication same is stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.01.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document