Civil Revision No.3800 of 2008 -1-
***
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.3800 of 2008
Date of decision: 20.2.2009
Ajit Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Sowaran Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr.Munishwar Puri, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the respondents.
S.D.ANAND, J.
The plaintiffs-petitioners applied for the leave of the Court to
adduce additional evidence and to thereby bring on record the following
documents:-
“1. Misal Haqiat Ishtemal 1955-56
2. Naksha Haqdarwar
3. Khatuni Ishtemal
4. Copy of the judgment dated 7.4.1996, passed by Shri
B.S.Teji, Sub Judge I Class, Tarn Taran.
5. Decree sheet dated 7.4.1966.
6. Copies of mutation No. 2791 and 1282.
7. Sale deed dated 23.5.1983.
8. Khatuni Paimash
9. Pre consolidation Jamabandi and Jamabandi after
consolidation.
The averment, in support of the application, was that the
Civil Revision No.3800 of 2008 -2-
***
availability of those documents was not to his notice and further that the
documents at Serial Nos. l to 4 and 7 to 9 were of Urdu language and it
was difficult to find some one conversant with that language who could
offer translation thereof. In support of the application, there also was an
averment that most of the documents are certified copies of the revenue
record and there is no possibility of those being fabricated.
Learned Trial Court declined the plea by observing that the
plea of the plaintiffs-petitioners for tendering into evidence judgment (and
decree) dated 7.4.1966 had already been declined on an earlier occasion.
Qua the other documents, it was observed that the petitioners-plaintiffs
had not shown diligence in the matter of presentation of the application
inasmuch as the suit is pending since the year 1999; whereas the
impugned application has been filed only in the year 2007.
Insofaras the documents at Serial Nos. 4 and 5 are
concerned, the reception thereof into evidence had been declined by the
learned Trial Court on an earlier occasion as well. As that order was not
challenged till date, it has attained finality. It cannot be set at naught by
filing a plea for additional evidence.
Insofar as the sale deed dated 23.5.1953 is concerned, it
constitutes an evidence of affirmative nature which the plaintiffs-petitioners
was to adduce. It is not a self proved document. Its allowance in
evidence would lead to avoidably inordinate delay. The plaintiffs-
petitioners have not, at all, explained why this document could not be
produced earlier.
In the light thereof, the petition shall stand dismissed qua the
documents entered at Serial Nos.4,5 and 7.
Insofar as the other documents are concerned, the petition
Civil Revision No.3800 of 2008 -3-
***
shall stand allowed in view of the fact that those documents are a part of
the revenue record and there can be no possibility that those could have
been fabricated. However, the documents would only be tendered into
evidence and plaintiffs-petitioners would not be entitled to call any witness
to prove those documents at the trial. The allowance of that part of the
plea shall be subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs.
February 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge
