Civil Rev. 4288 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 4288 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.9.2009 Jaskaran Singh Petitioner vs State of Punjab and others Respondent Present Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate Mr. Jaswinder Singh, AAG, Pb M.M.S.BEDI,J. Vide impugned order dated 17.7.2009 an application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner to examine Draftsman to prove the site plan prepared by him indicating the subject matter of the suit, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiffs could not inadvertently produce the Draftsman to prove the site plan of the property in dispute, which is necessary for the just decision of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel. With the assistance of counsel for the parties, I have gone through the pleadings and the evidence, which is part of the file of the lower court. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from making any encroachment on the public path (sadak Kham) abounding the fields of the plaintiffs, situated in the revenue limits of Gobindpura, Tehsil and District Bathinda on the ground that it was being used for ingress and outgress purposes, as Civil Rev. 4288 of 2009 2 shown in red colour in the site plan. The defendant- State has taken up a plea that the Government land is being used by the plaintiffs as a public path to approach their fields. It has been admitted in the written statement that the property in dispute is being used by the plaintiffs, though it vests in the Government, to approach their fields. It is also pleaded that at the time of the consolidation, passages were given to the owners of the land, as per the sketch plan, which was produced on the record. During the course of proceedings, the plaintiffs had produced Patwari Sukhvinder Singh (PW 4), who has produced Ex.PW4/A, a copy of Akas Latha along with the other record. Kanungo Surinder Singh (PW 5) of D.C. Office Bathinda has produced a certified copy of the site plan of the property in dispute as Ex.PW5/A. From the pleadings and the evidence, already produced, it is apparent that there is no patent dispute regarding the identification of the property regarding which rights have been claimed by the plaintiffs. The site plan, which is now sought to be produced on the record, appears to be not necessary for the just decision of the case as the site plan of the property in dispute stands already established on the record. Moreover, paragraph 1 of the plaint has not been specifically denied. It will be open to the plaintiff- petitioner to take the benefit of the provisions of Order 8 Rules 4 and 5 CPC. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. Another reason for dismissing the petition is that the case has reached at the final stage and is listed for final arguments and it will not be appropriate to give an opportunity to the plaintiff- petitioner to produce any document after the evidence of the parties has been closed. September 10 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE Civil Rev. 4288 of 2009 3