RANJIT SINGH Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE conspectus of the facts & material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, petitioner -plaintiff Ranjit Singh s/o Dalip Singh (for brevity "the plaintiff") has instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of partition by metes and bounds and for separate possession of the house in question against defendant -respondents Surinder Kaur & others (for short "the defendants"). The defendants contested the claim of plaintiff, filed the written statements (Annexures P2 & P3), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for its dismissal.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the contesting defendants No.1 to 3 moved the application (Annexure P5) for leading additional evidence u/s 151 CPC, inter -alia pleading that Bhagwan Kaur (defendant No.3) became the owner of the house in litigation, vide decree dated 21.10.1993 and defendants No.1 to 3 want to prove the copies of indicated judgment &decree, by way of additional evidence, which, inadvertently, could not be tendered into evidence by their counsel. The plaintiff refuted the claim of defendants, filed the reply (Annexure P6) stoutly denying all the allegations contained in it and prayed for its dismissal.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court accepted the application (Annexure P5) and permitted the contesting defendants to prove the aforesaid judgment by virtue of additional evidence, subject to payment of Rs. 1000/ - as costs, by means of impugned order dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure P8).