Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2007 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2007
Date of decision: 2.9. 2009
Reshami and others
......petitioners
Versus
Daya Ram and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate.
for the petitioner.
Rakesh Nehra, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 13 to 22 and 28 to 44.
****
SABINA, J.
Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated
20.8.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jhajjar.
Plaintiffs-petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction basing their claim on mortgage deed dated
7.6.1890. After competition of pleadings of the parties, issues were
Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2007 2
framed by the trial Court. Admittedly, the plaintiffs closed their
evidence in the year 2004 and the defendants closed their evidence
on 17.8.2005. After conclusion of defendants’ evidence, the case
was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs and arguments.
Then the plaintiffs moved an application for permission to lead
additional evidence and vide the impugned order the said application
filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. Hence, the present
revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
application for additional evidence was liable to be allowed as the
mortgage deed now sought to be proved on record has been
attached with the plaint. However, due to inadvertence, the same
could not be proved on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
has submitted that the certified copy of the mortgage deed was not
per se admissible in evidence. No application had been moved by
the plaintiffs to prove the same by leading secondary evidence.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed.
Admittedly, the mortgage deed dated 7.6.1890 was
placed on record along with the plaint. A specific issue with regard to
mortgage deed was also framed by the trial Court but the plaintiffs
failed to prove the mortgage deed on record in accordance with law.
The original mortgage deed is not forthcoming on record and the
Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2007 3
plaintiffs want to prove the certified copy of the mortgage deed. The
same is not per se admissible in evidence as it is not a public
document. The certified copy could only be proved after seeking
permission for proving the same by way of secondary evidence. In
these circumstances, the application for permission to lead additional
evidence has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.
Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any
material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this
Court.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
Setember 02, 2009
anita