PUNIT MIGLANI Vs. RANJIT SINGH KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Avtar S. Khinda, Advocate has appeared and filed his power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.3 today in the Court and the same is taken on record.

(2.) The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for impugning the order dtd. 17/8/2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that respondent No.3 during the course of his cross-examination, deposed that two firms namely, Somsons Export and Upkar Diesel Spares were being run on the suit property. It was submitted that the above-said facts came to light for the first time during his cross-examination as the same were neither pleaded in the original written statement nor in the amended written statement. Therefore, to rebut the said facts, it was necessary to examine the clerk of VAT (Excise and Taxation) Department, failing which, the petitioner would suffer from irreparable loss. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court had failed to appreciate that the counsel for the petitioner had closed the evidence in the affirmative on behalf of the plaintiff and thus, in the circumstances, the petitioner could not be denied the opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, more so, when the onus of proof qua issue No.5 was put on the respondents. In support thereof, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court passed in'Jaswinder Kaur and another vs. Devinder Singh and others', 1983 (2) RCR (Rent) 57.