HARMINDER PAL Vs. PRITAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to this Bench :-

(2.) PRITAM Dass, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against his sons Harminder Pal and Harkrishan Pal and their vendees Bachan Singh and others. According to the plaintiff, he was the owner of the suit property whereas; his sons were only Benamidar, therefore, they were having no right to sell the same in favour of other defendants. On the service of the notice, the sons of the plaintiff admitted the claim whereas; the suit was contested by the vendees of the sons. The plaintiff led his evidence and ultimately the evidence was closed on October 10, 1987 whereas, the suit was filed in the year 1981. Then the contesting defendants, concluded their evidence on June 15, 1988 and the case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiff in rebuttal. At this stage, the sons of the plaintiff, who admitted his claim moved an application to allow them to lead evidence, which application was contested on behalf of the defendant-vendees. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence is to be produced by a party on the issue in controversy, the sons of the plaintiff are not at issue with the plaintiff and as such they have no equitable right to lead evidence and therefore debarred from leading evidence. Consequently, the said application was rejected. Dissatisfied with the same, the consenting defendants filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner cited Chhoilu Ram v. Chandi Ram and Ors. , (1985-2) 88 P. L. R. 203 in support of the proposition that even if the defendant had admitted the claim of the plaintiff, he was to be allowed to lead evidence supporting the cause of the plaintiff. According to the learned Single Judge some of the legal aspects were not considered in the said case and the question of law posed in this petition, is likely to arise in a number of cases, it is apt to be settled by a Larger Bench.