Jaswinder Kakkar vs Meena Rani Alias Meena Kumari

CR-1360-2024 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(205)
CR-1360-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2026
JASWINDER KAKKAR
… Petitioner
Versus
MEENA RANI ALIAS MEENA KUMARI
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for respondent.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court, to assail the order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-10), passed
by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, on the ground
that the same is contrary to law and the facts and circumstances of the
case. The petitioner has further sought stay of the operation and
implementation of the impugned order during the pendency of the present
revision petition.
2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration
of her entitlement to execution of a sale deed on the basis of an alleged
family settlement dated 29.01.2013. The petitioner-defendant disputed its
genuineness and execution, asserting that the burden of proof rested upon
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-1360-2024 (O&M) -:2:-
the plaintiff. After the parties concluded their evidence, the plaintiff's
application seeking examination of a document and handwriting expert in
rebuttal was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2023, which attained
finality. Subsequently, her application seeking additional evidence was
allowed vide impugned order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-10),
prompting the petitioner to prefer the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned
order is legally unsustainable, having been passed in disregard of the
earlier order dated 13.04.2023, which had attained finality. It is submitted
that the Trial Court had categorically held that the burden of proving the
alleged family settlement dated 29.01.2013 rested upon the respondent-
plaintiff, who was required to discharge the same by leading affirmative
evidence. Having declined permission to adduce the proposed evidence at
the earlier stage, the Trial Court could not subsequently permit the
respondent-plaintiff to introduce the same evidence by way of an
application for additional evidence, particularly in the absence of any
cogent justification or explanation for such belated recourse. It is further
contended that the respondent-plaintiff has neither demonstrated due
diligence nor furnished any satisfactory explanation for failing to examine
the proposed witnesses at the appropriate stage. The impugned order,
being cryptic, non-speaking and inconsistent with the earlier findings
recorded by the Trial Court, is stated to suffer from patent illegality and
material irregularity. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel places reliance upon Saurav Jain vs. Mohan Lal, 2023(2) Law
Herald 954; Gurcharan Singh and Others vs. Sukhmander Singh and
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-1360-2024 (O&M) -:3:-
Others, 2018(4) CivCC 49; M/s Satyam Steel vs. Smt. Sarla and
Another, 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 902; Saroj vs. Charan Singh and
Others, 2018(5) RCR (Civil) 771; Surinder Saini vs. Simmi Saini and
Others, CR-8097-2016, decided on 06.12.2016; and Ajay Singh
Chaudhary and Another vs. Shiv Raj Singh (Now Deceased), 2024(1)
RCR (Civil) 613 . Accordingly, setting aside of the impugned order dated
13.02.2024 (Annexure P-10) and dismissal of the application for
additional evidence (Annexure P-8) are sought.
4. Mr. Ranjit Singh Ghuman, Advocate, had been appearing on
behalf of the respondent on the earlier dates of hearing; however, none has
appeared on behalf of the respondent today.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and, with his
able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the paper-book, this Court
finds considerable merit in the submissions advanced. The controversy
essentially centres around the respondent-plaintiff's attempt to introduce,
by way of a successive application for additional evidence, material which
had earlier been declined by the Trial Court vide order dated 13.04.2023,
which was never challenged and had consequently attained finality.
5.1. It is an admitted position that the respondent-plaintiff
instituted the suit seeking enforcement of the alleged family settlement
dated 29.01.2013 and, therefore, the burden of establishing its due
execution rested upon her. The necessity of examining the proposed
document and handwriting expert was within her knowledge from the
inception of the proceedings. Significantly, an earlier application seeking
substantially the same relief was dismissed by the Trial Court on
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-1360-2024 (O&M) -:4:-
13.04.2023, holding that the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled to
examine the proposed witnesses in rebuttal. The said order was never
assailed and attained finality. In the absence of any subsequent change in
circumstances or cogent justification, the respondent-plaintiff could not be
permitted to circumvent the effect of the earlier order by filing a
successive application, merely by recasting the same request as one
seeking permission to lead additional evidence.
5.2. The aforesaid legal position finds support in the judgments of
this Court in Surinder Saini’s case (supra), wherein the principle of
finality of judicial orders and the applicability of res judicata at successive
stages of the same proceedings were recognised; Gurcharan Singh’s case
(supra), wherein it was held that a party cannot circumvent an earlier order
declining permission to lead rebuttal evidence by seeking substantially the
same relief under the guise of an application for additional evidence,
particularly with a view to filling lacunae in the evidence already led; and
Ajay Singh Chaudhary’s case (supra), wherein this Court reiterated that
additional evidence cannot be permitted in the absence of satisfactory
justification and demonstrable due diligence, particularly when adequate
opportunities had already been afforded to the applicant.
5.3. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the respondent-plaintiff has neither pleaded nor
demonstrated any compelling circumstance warranting permission to
adduce the proposed additional evidence at this belated stage. The
application is conspicuously silent as to why the proposed expert evidence
was not produced during the course of affirmative evidence, particularly
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-1360-2024 (O&M) -:5:-
when the burden of proving the alleged family settlement rested upon the
respondent-plaintiff from the inception of the proceedings. No subsequent
development or discovery of any material, which could not have been
brought on record despite the exercise of due diligence, has been
disclosed. The Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has also
failed to consider the effect and finality of its earlier order dated
13.04.2023. Permitting such a successive application, in the absence of
any material change in circumstances, would effectively allow the
respondent-plaintiff to circumvent an order which has attained finality and
indirectly secure relief that had already been declined.
5.4. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
impugned order dated 13.02.2024 ( Annexure P-10 ) suffers from patent
illegality and material irregularity, warranting interference in exercise of
the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed ,
the impugned order is set aside and the application for additional evidence
( Annexure P-8 ) filed by the respondent-plaintiff stands dismissed .
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made here-in-
above are confined strictly to the adjudication of the controversy arising in
the present proceedings and shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. Nothing stated herein
shall prejudice or influence the rights, claims or contentions of either party
in the pending suit or any other proceedings, nor shall these observations
be treated as a determination of any substantive question of fact or law
arising therein.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

CR-1360-2024 (O&M) -:6:-
7. In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are warranted.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
11.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.11 16:15
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document