w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Viney Kumar v/s C.L. Malhotra Hosiery


Company & Directors' Information:- VINEY CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PLC047911

Company & Directors' Information:- J G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101TZ2001PTC009707

Company & Directors' Information:- K D S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101PB2001FTC024327

Company & Directors' Information:- R M H HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17125DL2007PTC167271

Company & Directors' Information:- P T M HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52322WB1994PTC062394

Company & Directors' Information:- M G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17124TZ2002PTC010195

Company & Directors' Information:- D D HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U18101WB1973PTC028694

Company & Directors' Information:- M. B. HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC125110

Company & Directors' Information:- R R HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101MH1984PTC034394

Company & Directors' Information:- K K HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204MH2014PTC251777

Company & Directors' Information:- B B HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC267158

Company & Directors' Information:- KUMAR HOSIERY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101GJ1995PTC025277

Company & Directors' Information:- M C S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311WB2001PTC093781

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HOSIERY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51311PB1985PTC006113

    Civil Revision No. 1958 of 2009

    Decided On, 25 January 2010

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

    For the Appearing Parties: Puneet Jindal, Amit Rawal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

S.D. ANAND, J.
(1) The respondents herein (defendants before the learned Trial Court) filed an application to obtain the leave of the Court to adduce secondary evidence to prove the following documents:-
"1. Carbon copy of partnership deed dated 2.4.1962 in respect of the firm M/s. C.L. Malhotra Hosiery.

2.Carbon copy of Partnership Deed dated 2.7.1976 of M/s. R.K. Malhotra Hosiery.

3.Carbon copy of Partnership Deed dated 20.1.1979 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears.

4.Carbon copy of Partnership Deed dated 14.1.1981 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears.

5. Carbon copy of Partnership Deed dated 17.4.1989 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears.

6. Carbon copy of balance sheets for the assessment year 1980-81 of M/s. R.K. Malhotra Hosiery, in which, entry of rent of Rs.1200/- paid to Sri Gopal has been made.

7. Carbon copy of balance sheets for the assessment year 1981-82 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears, in which entry of rent of Rs.2400/- to Sri Gopal, has been made.

8. Carbon copy of balance sheets for the assessment year 1982-83 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears, in which entry of rent of Rs.2640/- paid to Sri Gopal, has been made.

9. Carbon copy of balance sheets for the assessment year 1983-84 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears, in which entry of rent of Rs.2640/- paid to Sri Gopal, has been made.

10. Carbon copy of balance sheets for the assessment year 1984-85 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears, in which entry of rent of Rs.3040/- paid to Sri Gopal, has been made.

11. Carbon copy of balance sheets for the assessment year 1986-87 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears, in which entry of rent of Rs.6480/- paid to Sri Gopal, has been made.

12. Carbon copy of balance sheets for the assessment year 1987-88 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears, in which entry of rent of Rs.3240/- paid to Sri Gopal, has been made.

13. Carbon copy of balance sheets for the assessment year 1988-89 of M/s. Shivson Knitwears, in which entry of rent of Rs.3240/- paid to Sri Gopal, has been made."

(2) The plea was allowed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 9.4.2008. Although the order was in favour of defendants-respondents, he entertained an apprehension that "his main prayer in this Application which has been allowed for leading secondary evidence may not be permitted in view of the contents of the order passed". That petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench (Ranjit Singh, J.) of this Court by passing the following order:- "Though the order is in favour of the petitioner, that he is under the apprehension that his main prayer in this Application which has been allowed for leading secondary evidence may not be permitted in view of the contents of the order passed, I have perused the impugned order. It is clear that the permission has been granted to the petitioner to lead the secondary evidence after full satisfaction that the original of the documents required to be proved by way of secondary evidence are not in existence and are accounted for. The apprehension expressed by the Petitioner apparently is ill-founded. The petitioner should have right to lead the secondary evidence of the documents in accordance with law as has already been permitted by the Court.
(3) The revision is accordingly disposed of." Thereafter, the matter came up before the learned Trial Court on 13.6.2008 on which date the following order was passed by it:-
"DW10 cross examined. No other DW is present. A date is requested. Heard vide order dated 9.4.2008 passed by the then learned ACJ (SD) Ludhiana, no further opportunity was granted for remaining DWs. Hence, request is declined. Now case is adjourned to 30.7.2008 for rebuttal evidence or for arguments."

(4) It was thereafter that the respondents-defendants applied for the review of the order dated 13.6.2008. The review plea was allowed by the learned Trial Court by observing that closure of evidence vide order 13.6.2008 had been ordered without taking into consideration this Court's order dated 30.5.2008. The petitioners have an apprehension that under the garb of the impugned order defendants-respondents would examine two witnesses (whose affidavits have already tendered into evidence and copies thereof furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners) before the Trial Court whose testimony will have nothing at all to do with the aforesaid 13 items of documentation.
(5) The petitioners herein are not on a firmer footing when they entertain that apprehension. With the order allowing secondary evidence having attained finality, it is only the secondary evidence which can be adduced to prove the documentation aforementioned. No evidence beyond that aspect can be adduced at the trial. If any attempt is made by the respondents to bring on record evidence not relatable to secondary evidence documentation aforementioned, the effort shall be aborted by the learned Trial Court. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. In the light of the conceded position that the civil suit (No.94 of 13.6.1982) has been pending before the learned Trial Court for the last about 27 years, it is ordered that :-
1. That defendants-respondents shall have one time opportunity to conclude evidence on 4.2.2010 as the affidavits of two witnesses to be examined already tendered in evidence, it will be for the respondents to produce those witnesses on their own respon

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

sibility for the purpose of cross-examination. 2. Thereafter, the matter shall be adjourned to afford an opportunity to the petitioner herein to rebut that evidence. In that context, the petitioner shall conclude evidence by or on 31.3.2010. 3. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court shall positively conclude the trial by or on 15.4.2010. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date.
O R