AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.241/2026 (application for condonation of delay)
There is a delay of 265 days in filing the present Misc. Appeal No.25/2026. The counsel for the appellants stated that due to the slackness on the part of the previous counsel there was delay in filing the present appeal which was neither deliberate nor intentional. After considering all facts, the delay of 265 days stands condoned. The application is decided accordingly.
Misc. Appeal No.25/2026
The instant appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 16.01.2026 whereby I.A No.19/2026 filed on behalf of defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 before the DRT for seeking permission to adopt the evidence filed by defendant no.4(c) was dismissed. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.01.2026 is reproduced as under:-
7.It is not in dispute that the joint written statement filed by defendant nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 was not taken on record and was expressly declined by this Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2025 on the ground of being beyond the statutory period. The said order has admittedly attained finality.
8.It is a settled principle of law that evidence must be founded on pleadings. In the absence of pleadings on record, no party can be permitted to lead evidence, much less adopt the evidence of another party. The contention of the applicants that their defence is similar to the defence taken by defendant no.4(c) cannot be accepted as similarity of defence cannot substitute the mandatory requirement of pleadings being duly brought on record.
9.The right to adopt evidence is not an independent right but is incidental to the existence of valid pleadings. Permitting defendant nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to adopt the evidence of defendant no.4(c) would, in effect, amount to indirectly permitting them to bypass the consequences of rejection of their written statement, which is impermissible in law.
10.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the present application is devoid of merit. Accordingly, IA No.19/290265 is dismissed.
The perusal of the record reflects that respondent no.1 filed O.A. No.23/2024 titled as Punjab & Sind Bank V. M/s Jonson Rubber Industries Ltd. & others. The appellants who are defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 before the DRT did not file written statement and accordingly vide order dated 09.04.2025 their written statement was not taken on record. The order dated 09.04.2025 was not challenged by the said defendants.
The appellants thereafter sought permission of the DRT to adopt the evidence already filed on behalf of defendant no.4(c) which was not allowed by the DRT vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 on the ground that their written statement was not taken on record. It is accepted legal proposition that once a defendant is not allowed to file written statement, then he cannot be allowed to lead evidence or adopt evidence already filed by another defendant. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.01.2026. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order and does not call for any interference from this Tribunal.
The appeal is dismissed.