CR-5597-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Seth Nain Sukh Dass Parivrik Dharamarth Trust (Regd.) Ashok Gulia and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Rupam K. Aggarwal MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 leading rebuttal evidence w 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that an earlier application was moved by the petitioner seeking permission to produce the very same documents by way additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before this Court, which too came to be dismissed by a co dated 08.04.2025. In the said order, it was specifically observed that the petitioner had already produced on record the Jamabandis for the years 1965 2002, and nothing had been shown as to how the Jamabandis now sought to be produced for earlier years w (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : Seth Nain Sukh Dass Ram Dass Parivrik Dharamarth Trust (Regd.) VERSUS Ashok Gulia and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rupam K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) leading rebuttal evidence was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record. Perusal of the record reveals that an earlier application was moved by the petitioner seeking permission to produce the very same documents by way additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before this Court, which too came to be dismissed by a co 4.2025. In the said order, it was specifically observed that the petitioner had already produced on record the Jamabandis for the years 1965 2002, and nothing had been shown as to how the Jamabandis now sought to be produced for earlier years would further advance the petitioner’s case. It was -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5597-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 25.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone Perusal of the record reveals that an earlier application was moved by the petitioner seeking permission to produce the very same documents by way additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before this Court, which too came to be dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench vide order 4.2025. In the said order, it was specifically observed that the petitioner had already produced on record the Jamabandis for the years 1965-66 and 2001 2002, and nothing had been shown as to how the Jamabandis now sought to be ould further advance the petitioner’s case. It was - The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 for I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone Perusal of the record reveals that an earlier application was moved by the petitioner seeking permission to produce the very same documents by way of additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before ordinate Bench vide order 4.2025. In the said order, it was specifically observed that the petitioner 66 and 2001- 2002, and nothing had been shown as to how the Jamabandis now sought to be ould further advance the petitioner’s case. It was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5597-2025 (O&M) further noticed that the documents pertain to a period much prior to the filing of the suit, and it could not be said that the petitioner was unaware of their existence. If at all the petitioner desired to led at the stage of affirmative evidence. 3. Once the co rejected the very plea of the petitioner, it is not open to the petitioner to re the same issue by filing another application on identical grounds, only changing the nomenclature from “additional evidence” to “rebuttal evidence.” Merely because an SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the earlier order would not entitl the trial Court on the same set of facts and documents. The findings recorded by the trial Court as well as in the earlier revision categorically hold that such evidence ought to have been led in affi permitted at the stage of rebuttal. 4. The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned trial Court has rightly declined the request of the petitioner, and no ground is jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 25, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) further noticed that the documents pertain to a period much prior to the filing of the suit, and it could not be said that the petitioner was unaware of their existence. If at all the petitioner desired to rely upon them, such evidence should have been led at the stage of affirmative evidence. Once the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already considered and rejected the very plea of the petitioner, it is not open to the petitioner to re ame issue by filing another application on identical grounds, only changing the nomenclature from “additional evidence” to “rebuttal evidence.” Merely because an SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the earlier order would not entitle the petitioner to maintain a fresh application before the trial Court on the same set of facts and documents. The findings recorded by the trial Court as well as in the earlier revision categorically hold that such evidence ought to have been led in affirmative evidence, and cannot now be permitted at the stage of rebuttal. The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned trial Court has rightly declined the request of the petitioner, and no ground is made out for interference in exercise of revisional Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -2- further noticed that the documents pertain to a period much prior to the filing of the suit, and it could not be said that the petitioner was unaware of their existence. rely upon them, such evidence should have been ordinate Bench of this Court had already considered and rejected the very plea of the petitioner, it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate ame issue by filing another application on identical grounds, only changing the nomenclature from “additional evidence” to “rebuttal evidence.” Merely because an SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the e the petitioner to maintain a fresh application before the trial Court on the same set of facts and documents. The findings recorded by the trial Court as well as in the earlier revision categorically hold that such rmative evidence, and cannot now be The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned trial Court has rightly declined the request of made out for interference in exercise of revisional Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - further noticed that the documents pertain to a period much prior to the filing of the suit, and it could not be said that the petitioner was unaware of their existence. rely upon them, such evidence should have been ordinate Bench of this Court had already considered and agitate ame issue by filing another application on identical grounds, only changing the nomenclature from “additional evidence” to “rebuttal evidence.” Merely because an SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the e the petitioner to maintain a fresh application before the trial Court on the same set of facts and documents. The findings recorded by the trial Court as well as in the earlier revision categorically hold that such rmative evidence, and cannot now be The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned trial Court has rightly declined the request of made out for interference in exercise of revisional Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document