CR-6017-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Swami Charitable Educational Society (Regd.) and Another Krishan Goyal and Others CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Sumeet Jain, and Mr. Vishesh Jain for the petitioner MANDEEP PANNU 1. This revision petition is passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Derabassi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence h Brief facts 2. The petitioner respondents. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6 filed their written statement and issues were framed. Parties led their respective evidence. Respondent No.4, Additional Registrar of Societies, appeared as DW that amendments made by the plaintiff 13.11.2017, but simultaneously admitted that the governing body of the Society was shown as ap office signified approval of the records. The case was thereafter adjourned for the evidence of the defendants. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on Swami Charitable Educational Society (Regd.) and Another VERSUS Krishan Goyal and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sumeet Jain, and Mr. Vishesh Jain for the petitioners. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Derabassi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence h The petitioner-Society filed a suit for declaration against the respondents. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6 filed their written statement and issues were framed. Parties led their respective evidence. Respondent No.4, Additional Registrar of Societies, appeared as DW that amendments made by the plaintiff-Society had been rejected vide order dated 13.11.2017, but simultaneously admitted that the governing body of the Society was shown as approved. He further admitted that certified copies issued by his office signified approval of the records. The case was thereafter adjourned for the evidence of the defendants. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6017-2025 (O&M) Decided on:- 02.09.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sumeet Jain, and Mr. Vishesh Jain, Advocates directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Derabassi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Society filed a suit for declaration against the respondents. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6 filed their written statement and issues were framed. Parties led their respective evidence. Respondent No.4, Additional Registrar of Societies, appeared as DW-2 and in his deposition stated Society had been rejected vide order dated 13.11.2017, but simultaneously admitted that the governing body of the Society proved. He further admitted that certified copies issued by his office signified approval of the records. The case was thereafter adjourned for the - directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Derabassi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Society filed a suit for declaration against the respondents. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 6 filed their written statement and issues were framed. Parties led their respective evidence. Respondent No.4, 2 and in his deposition stated Society had been rejected vide order dated 13.11.2017, but simultaneously admitted that the governing body of the Society proved. He further admitted that certified copies issued by his office signified approval of the records. The case was thereafter adjourned for the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.05 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6017-2025 (O&M) 3. During pendency of trial, defendants No.1 to 3 themselves moved an application for leading additional evidence which was allowed. When the matter was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed the present application for additional evidence, placing reliance on the subsequent events arising out of FIR No.0028, dated 21.01.20 allegations of forgery of bogus resolutions of the petitioner investigation, the statement of Additional Registrar (Societies), Mohali, that no recognition was ever granted to the alleged governing body set up by respondent No.1 and that the only valid and recognised governing body was that of the petitioner. He further clarified that no certificate of fili respect of the so 4. It is this material available at the time of recording the plaintiff’s evidence seeks to bring on reco fill lacunae, but to place before the Court material which directly contradicts the testimony of DW Court, however, dismissed the concluded, that one record clerk had already been examined, and that recalling another officer from the Registrar’s office was not justified. It was also that the application was belated. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and the record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The true test for allowing additional evidence, as repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is whether such evidence is ne (O&M) During pendency of trial, defendants No.1 to 3 themselves moved an ion for leading additional evidence which was allowed. When the matter was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed the present application for additional evidence, placing reliance on the subsequent events arising out of FIR dated 21.01.2023 registered against private respondents on the allegations of forgery of bogus resolutions of the petitioner investigation, the statement of Balbir Singh, Senior Assistant in the office of Additional Registrar (Societies), Mohali, was rec that no recognition was ever granted to the alleged governing body set up by respondent No.1 and that the only valid and recognised governing body was that of the petitioner. He further clarified that no certificate of fili respect of the so-called governing body of respondent No.1. It is this material i.e a subsequent development available at the time of recording the plaintiff’s evidence seeks to bring on record by way of additional evidence. This is not an attempt to fill lacunae, but to place before the Court material which directly contradicts the testimony of DW-2 and goes to the very root of the controversy. The learned trial ourt, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the trial had concluded, that one record clerk had already been examined, and that recalling another officer from the Registrar’s office was not justified. It was also that the application was belated. Having considered the rival contentions and the record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The true test for allowing additional evidence, as repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is whether such evidence is necessary for the Court to pronounce judgment in a just -2- During pendency of trial, defendants No.1 to 3 themselves moved an ion for leading additional evidence which was allowed. When the matter was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed the present application for additional evidence, placing reliance on the subsequent events arising out of FIR 23 registered against private respondents on the allegations of forgery of bogus resolutions of the petitioner-Society. During Singh, Senior Assistant in the office of was recorded, wherein he clearly stated that no recognition was ever granted to the alleged governing body set up by respondent No.1 and that the only valid and recognised governing body was that of the petitioner. He further clarified that no certificate of filing was ever issued in called governing body of respondent No.1. a subsequent development which was available at the time of recording the plaintiff’s evidence and which the petitioner rd by way of additional evidence. This is not an attempt to fill lacunae, but to place before the Court material which directly contradicts the 2 and goes to the very root of the controversy. The learned trial application on the ground that the trial had concluded, that one record clerk had already been examined, and that recalling another officer from the Registrar’s office was not justified. It was also observed Having considered the rival contentions and the record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The true test for allowing additional evidence, as repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is cessary for the Court to pronounce judgment in a just - During pendency of trial, defendants No.1 to 3 themselves moved an ion for leading additional evidence which was allowed. When the matter was fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed the present application for additional evidence, placing reliance on the subsequent events arising out of FIR 23 registered against private respondents on the Society. During Singh, Senior Assistant in the office of orded, wherein he clearly stated that no recognition was ever granted to the alleged governing body set up by respondent No.1 and that the only valid and recognised governing body was that of ng was ever issued in which was not which the petitioner rd by way of additional evidence. This is not an attempt to fill lacunae, but to place before the Court material which directly contradicts the 2 and goes to the very root of the controversy. The learned trial application on the ground that the trial had concluded, that one record clerk had already been examined, and that recalling observed Having considered the rival contentions and the record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable. The true test for allowing additional evidence, as repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is cessary for the Court to pronounce judgment in a just TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.05 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6017-2025 (O&M) manner. The principle has been reiterated in 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875 of evidence and arguments, the Court may pe inherent power under Section 151 CPC, provided the evidence is bona fide, relevant and its earlier non further observed that procedure is intended to advance justice, no Similarly, in Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) through LRs, 2016 AIR (SC) 1343 was held that where additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and has decisive bearing on the issues, it must be admitted, subject to appropriate safeguards. 6. In the present case, the statement of subsequent in time but also vital. It directly contradicts the testimony of DW and, therefore, incomplete and possibl producing this earlier, since it came into existence after closure of evidence. To deny its production merely because the matter was fixed for arguments would amount to elevating procedure above 7. This Court also finds merit in the contention that the trial in treating the application as belated without appreciating that the events on which the petitioner relies beyond the petitioner’s control. The trial C defendants themselves had earlier been permitted to adduce additional evidence. Once such latitude was extended to one party, fairness demanded that the petitioner also be given a (O&M) manner. The principle has been reiterated in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875, where the Hon’ble Court held that even after conclusion of evidence and arguments, the Court may pe inherent power under Section 151 CPC, provided the evidence is bona fide, relevant and its earlier non-production is justified by valid reasons. The Court further observed that procedure is intended to advance justice, no Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) through LRs, 2016 AIR (SC) 1343 was held that where additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and has decisive bearing on the issues, it must be admitted, subject to appropriate In the present case, the statement of subsequent in time but also vital. It directly contradicts the testimony of DW its exclusion would result in the Court deciding the case on an incomplete and possibly misleading record. The petitioner cannot be faulted for not producing this earlier, since it came into existence after closure of evidence. To deny its production merely because the matter was fixed for arguments would amount to elevating procedure above justice. This Court also finds merit in the contention that the trial in treating the application as belated without appreciating that the events on which the petitioner relies i.e. the FIR and subsequent investigation, etitioner’s control. The trial Court also overlooked the fact that defendants themselves had earlier been permitted to adduce additional evidence. Once such latitude was extended to one party, fairness demanded that the petitioner also be given an opportunity to produce material of decisive value. -3- K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, , where the Hon’ble Court held that even after conclusion of evidence and arguments, the Court may permit fresh evidence in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC, provided the evidence is bona fide, production is justified by valid reasons. The Court further observed that procedure is intended to advance justice, not to obstruct it. Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) through LRs, 2016 AIR (SC) 1343 was held that where additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and has decisive bearing on the issues, it must be admitted, subject to appropriate In the present case, the statement of Balbir Singh is not only subsequent in time but also vital. It directly contradicts the testimony of DW its exclusion would result in the Court deciding the case on an y misleading record. The petitioner cannot be faulted for not producing this earlier, since it came into existence after closure of evidence. To deny its production merely because the matter was fixed for arguments would This Court also finds merit in the contention that the trial Court erred in treating the application as belated without appreciating that the events on which IR and subsequent investigation, are developments ourt also overlooked the fact that defendants themselves had earlier been permitted to adduce additional evidence. Once such latitude was extended to one party, fairness demanded that the n opportunity to produce material of decisive value. - K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, , where the Hon’ble Court held that even after conclusion rmit fresh evidence in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC, provided the evidence is bona fide, production is justified by valid reasons. The Court t to obstruct it. Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) through LRs, 2016 AIR (SC) 1343, it was held that where additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and has decisive bearing on the issues, it must be admitted, subject to appropriate Singh is not only subsequent in time but also vital. It directly contradicts the testimony of DW-2, its exclusion would result in the Court deciding the case on an y misleading record. The petitioner cannot be faulted for not producing this earlier, since it came into existence after closure of evidence. To deny its production merely because the matter was fixed for arguments would ourt erred in treating the application as belated without appreciating that the events on which are developments ourt also overlooked the fact that defendants themselves had earlier been permitted to adduce additional evidence. Once such latitude was extended to one party, fairness demanded that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.05 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6017-2025 (O&M) 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and has occasioned miscarriage of justice. The revision petition is accordingly al 10.07.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC is allowed. The petitioner shall be permitted to examine Assistant, and to produce on record related documents, subject of ₹5000/- to the respondents and subject to one effective opportunity to be given by the learned trial Court examine and to lead rebuttal evidence Thereafter, the case shall proceed to final arguments without avoidable delay. 9. Accordingly, the present r terms 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 02, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and has occasioned miscarriage of justice. The revision petition is accordingly al 10.07.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC is allowed. The petitioner shall be permitted to examine Assistant, and to produce on record related documents, subject to the respondents and subject to one effective opportunity to be given by the learned trial Court. The respondents shall have due opportunity to cross examine and to lead rebuttal evidence to additional evidence the case shall proceed to final arguments without avoidable delay. Accordingly, the present revision petition Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and has occasioned miscarriage of justice. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 10.07.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC is allowed. The petitioner shall be permitted to examine concerned Senior Assistant, and to produce on record related documents, subject to payment of costs to the respondents and subject to one effective opportunity to be given . The respondents shall have due opportunity to cross to additional evidence, if so advis the case shall proceed to final arguments without avoidable delay. evision petition is allowed in the above-said Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and has occasioned miscarriage lowed. The impugned order dated 10.07.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 Senior to payment of costs to the respondents and subject to one effective opportunity to be given . The respondents shall have due opportunity to cross- , if so advised. said TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.05 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document