Ajaib Singh vs Rakesh Kumar

Laxmi Narain Mittal, J.—Defendant Ajaib Singh, aggrieved by order dated 20.07.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application Annexure P-2 filed by respondents/plaintiffs for additional evidence, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the said order. Plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.05.2005 and also for other relief's. The plaintiffs alleged in their application Annexure P-2 that two cheques bearing Nos. 0100247 and 0100891 - both dated 02.05.2006 were referred to in the affidavit examination-in-chief of Rakesh Kumar-plaintiff No. 1, but inadvertently the same were not placed on record. Accordingly, permission was sought to place the same on record by additional evidence. The said application has been allowed by trial court vide impugned order (Annexure P-1), subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiffs did not place the original cheques or photostat copies thereof on record of the trial court either with plaint or with affidavit of examination-in-chief of plaintiff No. 1 and even with application Annexure P-2. However, merely on this ground, application Annexure P-2 filed by the plaintiffs could not be dismissed because as fairly conceded by counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiffs had referred to the said cheques even in the plaint, besides referring to the same in affidavit of examination-in-chief of plaintiff No. 1. While cross-examining plaintiff No. 1, the defendant could have sought the production of the said cheques so as to cross-examine plaintiff No. 1 with reference to the same. It is thus apparent that it was only inadvertent omission on the part of the plaintiffs that the cheques were not placed on record along with affidavit of plaintiff No. 1 and even defendant did not take notice of the said omission.

In the aforesaid circumstances, application filed by plaintiffs has been rightly allowed by the trial court, on payment of costs. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court calling for interference under supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.