CR-1566- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 261 RAJBIR SHYAM MANOHAR AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) an application leading additional evidence has been dismissed, he has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. 2. submits that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance 16 kanal that upon appearing Annexure P between the parties was for sale of 01 kanal consideration -2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VS. SHYAM MANOHAR AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gursimrat Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Radhika Pathania, Advocate for Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Aggrieved of order dated 31.01.2023 Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) an application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 CPC leading additional evidence has been dismissed, he has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific erformance of agreement to sell dated 14.10. was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs.32 lacs. He that upon appearing, the petitioner/defendant Annexure P-4, denying the agreement and took between the parties was for sale of 01 kanal consideration. He submits that in order to prove the value of the land, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1566-2023 Date of decision:29.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gursimrat Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Radhika Pathania, Advocate for Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, Annexure P-1, whereby filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 CPC leading additional evidence has been dismissed, he has approached this Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific agreement to sell dated 14.10.2016, whereby land measuring a consideration of Rs.32 lacs. He states the petitioner/defendant filed the written statement, 4, denying the agreement and took a stand that agreement between the parties was for sale of 01 kanal residential land for the said . He submits that in order to prove the value of the land, .2025 passed by the learned whereby for leading additional evidence has been dismissed, he has approached this Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific whereby land measuring states written statement, a stand that agreement land for the said . He submits that in order to prove the value of the land, Sheetal 2025.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1566- defendant filed an ap to sell dated 30.11.2015 and parties qua the land situated in the same khewat number. perusal of the two documents market value of the land. Counsel asserts that these d the knowledge of the defendant earlier and Trial Court has erred the application by observing that the parties to the suit. and others 3. respondents states that the belated stage delay the conclusion of the suit, which is pending since 2018. 4. respective record. 5. an agreement to sell, which is being contested written statement, Annexure P Trial Court framed i evidence on defendant, who 18.08.2022 plaintiffs filed the application, Annexure P -2023 -2- defendant filed an application, Annexure P to sell dated 30.11.2015 and 29.07.2022 entered into between different qua the land situated in the same khewat number. perusal of the two documents would enable market value of the land. Counsel asserts that these d the knowledge of the defendant earlier and Trial Court has erred the application by observing that the agreements have no connection with arties to the suit. He has placed reliance on and others 2020 (2) PLR 715. While supporting the impugned order, counsel for the respondents states that the application has been filed by the belated stage. He states that the sole objective of the conclusion of the suit, which is pending since 2018. I have heard counsel for the parties a respective submissions besides examining Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which is being contested written statement, Annexure P-4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues on 27.11.2018 evidence on 19.10.2019. Repeated opportunities were granted to the defendant, who produced four witnesses and closed his 18.08.2022. Suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, plaintiffs filed the application, Annexure P plication, Annexure P-2, for producing two agreement .07.2022 entered into between different qua the land situated in the same khewat number. He submits that enable the Court to assess the potential market value of the land. Counsel asserts that these documents were not to the knowledge of the defendant earlier and Trial Court has erred in rejecting the agreements have no connection with He has placed reliance on Baljeet Singh Vs. Ram Pal supporting the impugned order, counsel for the has been filed by the respondents at a He states that the sole objective of filing the application is the conclusion of the suit, which is pending since 2018. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their submissions besides examining the documents placed on filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which is being contested by the petitioner by filing a On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 27.11.2018 and the plaintiffs concluded their Repeated opportunities were granted to the produced four witnesses and closed his evidence on was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, when plaintiffs filed the application, Annexure P-2, for production of additional o agreements .07.2022 entered into between different the to assess the potential were not to in rejecting the agreements have no connection with Singh Vs. Ram Pal supporting the impugned order, counsel for the at a is to nd considered their the documents placed on the filed a suit for specific performance of by the petitioner by filing a On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, and the plaintiffs concluded their Repeated opportunities were granted to the evidence on when 2, for production of additional Sheetal 2025.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1566- evidence, which has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order impugned herein. 6. agreements in evidence, which was not to application is totally silent knowledge mentioned in the on which the in the same khewat or location, and circumstances under which it is being sold are always dissimilar. not necessary for the just decision of the case. Moreover, the failure to produce these petitioner/defendant 7. casual manner evidence, defendant cannot be permitted to fill in the omissions in his evidence although sufficient opportunity had been granted to the material on the record. case (supra) case as the Court had permitted the petitioner therein to produce the documents, which were very old and the Court was of the to the root Court does not Trial Court. -2023 -3- evidence, which has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order impugned Through this application, defendant agreements in evidence, which was not to application is totally silent as to when the petitioner/defendant acquired the knowledge of the agreements. The consideration for the sale of the land mentioned in the said agreements is not comparable on which the disputed land was agreed to be sold same khewat or vicinity. The market value of each location, and circumstances under which it is being sold are always dissimilar. Both the agreements sought to be produced by the petitioner are not necessary for the just decision of the case. Moreover, the failure to produce these documents petitioner/defendant, is vague. A party cannot be permitted to casual manner at his whim and fancy. Under evidence, defendant cannot be permitted to fill in the omissions in his evidence although sufficient opportunity had been granted to the material on the record. The judgment case (supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioner would not advance his the Court had permitted the petitioner therein to produce the documents, which were very old and the Court was of the root of the matter. That is not the does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. evidence, which has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order impugned defendant intends to produce two agreements in evidence, which was not to his knowledge earlier. The as to when the petitioner/defendant acquired the of the agreements. The consideration for the sale of the land is not comparable with the consideration land was agreed to be sold, even if the land is located The market value of each parcel of land, its location, and circumstances under which it is being sold are always sought to be produced by the petitioner are not necessary for the just decision of the case. Moreover, the reason for documents during evidence of the permitted to lead additional evidence in a at his whim and fancy. Under the garb of leading additional evidence, defendant cannot be permitted to fill in the omissions in his evidence although sufficient opportunity had been granted to him to bring all The judgment of this Court in Baljeet Singh relied upon by counsel for the petitioner would not advance his the Court had permitted the petitioner therein to produce the documents, which were very old and the Court was of the view that they the situation in the present case. This find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the evidence, which has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order impugned to produce two knowledge earlier. The as to when the petitioner/defendant acquired the of the agreements. The consideration for the sale of the land with the consideration located of land, its location, and circumstances under which it is being sold are always sought to be produced by the petitioner are reason for evidence of the lead additional evidence in a the garb of leading additional evidence, defendant cannot be permitted to fill in the omissions in his him to bring all eet Singh’s relied upon by counsel for the petitioner would not advance his the Court had permitted the petitioner therein to produce the that they go situation in the present case. This find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Sheetal 2025.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-1566- 8. costs. 29.04.2025 sheetal -2023 -4- Petition lacks merit and is dismissed .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No is dismissed, though with no order as to (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No though with no order as to Sheetal 2025.05.08 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh