C.R. No.3797 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3797 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.07.2009 1. Nathu Ram; 2. Biru Ram @ Bir Singh; s/o Bansi, son of Kalu, r/o village Bhiwani Khera, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus Akhara Panchayat, situated at Sheikhchilli Makbra, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, through its Mohtimim/Manager. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 29.05.2009, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, vide which, it dismissed the application, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, for leading additional evidence, in case titled as 'Nathi Ram etc. Vs. Akhara Panchayat'. C.R. No.3797 of 2009 2 2. The plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, claimed themselves, to be in possession of the suit land, as tenants, under the defendant/respondent. It was stated that the defendant/respondent threatened them, to dispossess therefrom, illegally. Accordingly, they filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/respondent, from dispossessing them therefrom, except, in accordance with the provisions of law. 3. The defendant/respondent, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, it denied, that the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, were tenants, in the property, in dispute. 4. The plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, and defendant/respondent, led evidence, and closed the same. Thereafter, an application for additional evidence, was moved, by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, for producing on record, copy of the application filed by the defendant/respondent, for rendition of accounts, in the Revenue Court, admitting the plaintiffs as tenants. That application was dismissed, by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, vide the order impugned. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, was filed by the revision-petitioners. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, and have gone through the document, on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that, no doubt, the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, during the course of their evidence, produced the revenue record, right from the year 1972, to establish their possession over the land, in dispute, as tenants, yet this factum, was denied by the defendant/respondent, in the written statement. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, an application, filed by the C.R. No.3797 of 2009 3 defendant/respondent, before the Revenue Court, admitting the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, as tenants, was essential for the just decision of the case. He further submitted that the trial Court, was wrong, in dismissing the application, referred to above. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. From the order impugned, it is evident, that the issues were framed, on 18.08.2002. The plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, closed their evidence, on 27.07.2004. Thereafter, the defendant/respondent, closed its evidence, on 03.05.2006. The case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, for 18.03.2008, when the application, on which, the impugned order, was passed, was filed by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners. As stated above, the Counsel for the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, in clear-cut terms, stated that the revenue record, right from 1972 onwards, had been produced, and got exhibited by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, to prove, that they were in possession of the property, in dispute, as tenants, under the defendant. The jamabandis, containing such entries, carry a presumption of truth, until and unless rebutted. The khasra girdawries, carrying such entries, carry a presumption of correctness, until proved to the contrary. Under these circumstances, the evidence already produced by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, in the suit, to prove their claim, could not be said to be insufficient. The additional evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, could not be said to be essential, for the just decision of the case. The trial Court, in my opinion, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the case, being old, the plaintiffs/revision-petitioners, C.R. No.3797 of 2009 4 were out and out, to prolong the decision thereof. The trial Court, in my opinion, was right, in dismissing the application for additional evidence. The order of the trial Court, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 13.07.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE