SURINDER KAUR Vs. ISLAM AHMAD & OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-3-148
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 27,2012

SURINDER KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
Islam Ahmad And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning two orders, one passed by learned trial Judge rejecting the petitioner s application for receiving the documents after the closure of the arguments, when the suit was fixed for delivery of judgment. It was observed by learned trial Judge that there is no sufficient reason and ground to entertain this application at belated stage. Petitioner before me is a plaintiff and took this matter to the first revisional court, namely, the learned District Judge who held that the order of rejection of the learned trial Judge was justified in the fact and circumstances of this case.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both the learned court below failed to exercise their jurisdiction by not entertaining the fresh document as evidence as it could be done under provision of law at any stage even before delivery of judgment. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon ble Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Saroj Devi Jaiswal and another Vs. Addl. District Judge and another,2011 29 LCD 1084 and also Supreme Court s decision in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, 2005 23 LCD 1250.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.4, on the other hand, says that the proposition of law as propounded by learned counsel for the petitioner is not disputed but in the application there is no explanation as to why the document was not produced at the earlier stage of hearing of the suit. He has also submitted referring dates when evidence was closed by both the parties and court concluded the hearing and fixed the date for delivery of judgment and for rearguments also that this application is delaying tactics on the part of the plaintiff who brought the suit in the year 1991. Realizing the fate of the suit, the plaintiff wants to prolong it keeping it pending.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.