C. R. No. 3231 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3231 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 29, 2009 Naresh Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Kali Ram and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff assailing order dated 12.05.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, dismissing application moved by the petitioner for producing five documents by way of additional/rebuttal evidence, which are as under :- “(1) Certified copy of application dated 05.10.2005 in case titled “Naresh Versus Kali Ram etc.”, decided by A. C. 1st Grade. (2) Certified copy of written reply dated 08.11.2005 filed by respondent in the above said case. C. R. No. 3231 of 2009 2 (3) Certified/attested copy of complaint dated 27.09.2005 filed by Naresh against Halqa Patwari. (4) Certified copy of `Parwana' dated 23.08.2005 for getting complete record of mutation No. 2174. (5) Certified copy of the application applied for getting the `Parat Sarkar' from the office of Kanungo.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Following issues have been framed in the suit :- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession by way of Will dated 7.1.05 ? OPP (2) Whether the Mutation No. 2174 in favour of defendants is illegal ? OPP (3) Relief.” Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the proposed documents are essential to prove collusion of revenue officials with defendant-respondents resulting in illegal sanction of the impugned mutation. The contention, although apparently attractive on first blush, is without merit. Irregularity or illegality in sanction of mutation would become irrelevant once the rights of the parties are determined by the Civil Court because Revenue Record has to follow the determination made by the Civil Court. Perusal of issue no. 1 reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner claims to be owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of Will. If the petitioner is able to prove issue no. 1, issue no. 2 would automatically go in favour of the petitioner. Conversely, if the petitioner fails on issue no.1, C. R. No. 3231 of 2009 3 issue no. 2 has to go against him. Consequently, the documents proposed to be adduced in evidence are not relevant because the case of the plaintiff is based on Will and he has to prove the same. Mutation does not confer any right or title. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 29, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE