Inadvertent Mistake By Court While Adjourning Matter Can't Take Away Valuable Right Of Party To Lead Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Trial Court which instead of adjourning the case for plaintiff's evidence, fixed it inadvertently for rebuttal evidence, held that the plaintiff-respondent cannot be deprived of her valuable right of leading evidence in the affirmative...
Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Trial Court which instead of adjourning the case for plaintiff's evidence, fixed it inadvertently for rebuttal evidence, held that the plaintiff-respondent cannot be deprived of her valuable right of leading evidence in the affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her, merely because the Court made a mistake while adjourning the matter.
Merely because an inadvertent mistake was caused by the Court while adjourning the matter the plaintiff-respondent cannot be deprived of her valuable right of leading evidence in the affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her.
The bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin was dealing with the instant revision petition challenging the order whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for rejection of the affidavit of the witness named Narjit Singh Dhillon was dismissed.
The court took into notice that after the defendant-petitioner had led her evidence on issues the onus of which was cast upon her, the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent filed an affidavit and the defendant-petitioner filed an application for rejection of the same on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent by way of the affidavit wanted to lead evidence in affirmative in the garb of rebuttal evidence, which is not permissible in law.
The court noticed that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff-respondent on issues qua which the onus was cast upon her. The Trial Court has also recorded that the plaintiff-respondent is yet to lead her evidence in the affirmative. It was further noticed by the Trial Court that instead of adjourning the case for the plaintiff's evidence, inadvertently, the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence.
Court finally concluded that the plaintiff-respondent would have a right to lead her evidence in affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon her as well as in rebuttal on issues the onus of which was cast upon the defendant-petitioner and qua which the evidence has already been led.
Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent would have a right to lead her evidence in affirmative on issues the onus of which was cast upon the plaintiff- respondent as well as in rebuttal on issues the onus of which was cast upon the defendant-petitioner and qua which the evidence has already been led.
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the court dismissed the petition for it being sans merit.
Case Title: Simarjit Kaur @ Simerjeet Kaur @ Simarjeet Kaur versus Maninder Kaur
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 112