PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-plaintiff challenges the order dtd. 17/3/2021, whereby learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh declined the application filed under Sec. 151 CPC for leading additional evidence. The reasoning given by the Court below is that the suit pertains to the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08/12/5/2008 with respect to booth No.209, Shastri Market, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh and the documents, which are sought to be brought on record are pertaining to the year 1994. As per the documents, the defendant had agreed to sell the said booth and executed an agreement, a GPA and a Will and therefore, are not relevant, as such, to decide the controversy between the parties. It was noticed that in the cross-examination conducted on 16/2/2018, the defendant had also admitted the said agreement on an earlier point of time with Gagan Chaudhary. The trial Court came to the conclusion that way back in the year 2018 also, petitioner-plaintiff knew regarding the factum of these documents, which he has now sought to be produced on record and had failed to move an application at an earlier point of time.

(2.) It was also noticed that factual arguments of both the counsel had been concluded and only the law points were left to be submitted. Therefore, the application was dismissed, by placing reliance on Sec. 52 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(3.) The issues, which were framed in the suit, read as under:-