Civil Revision No. 6376 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6376 of 2010 Date of decision : October 08, 2010 Ujjager Singh ....Petitioner versus Rambir and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 25303.CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 6376 of 2010 Ujjager Singh one of the legal representatives of original plaintiff Kirpal Singh since deceased has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 3.9.2010, Annexure P/5 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula thereby dismissing application moved by the legal representatives of the plaintiff for additional evidence to prove photostat copy of the demarcation report dated 4.6.1998 by secondary evidence. Kirpal Singh plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction to Civil Revision No. 6376 of 2010 -2- vacate the suit land measuring 10 marlas by removal of construction therefrom alleging that the defendants have encroached upon the suit land belonging to the plaintiff comprised of khasra no. 167 min. The plaintiff sought relief of physical possession of the suit land. The plaintiff referred to demarcation report dated 4.6.1998 in the plaint to plead that defendants have encroached upon the suit land. At the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments, the plaintiff moved application Annexure P/3 for additional evidence to prove photostat copy of the demarcation report by secondary evidence alleging that the original demarcation report has been misplaced and its photostat copy could not be proved in the affirmative evidence and is required to be proved by additional evidence. Defendants resisted the application by filing reply Annexure P/4 to the application. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/5 dismissed the plaintiff's application. Feeling aggrieved the instant revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that photostat copy of the demarcation report was produced with the plaint itself and the same is required to be proved and therefore, permission to lead additional evidence to prove photostat copy of the demarcation report by secondary evidence should be granted. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find no merit therein. There is no material on record to depict that the original Civil Revision No. 6376 of 2010 -3- demarcation report has been misplaced. No official from the concerned office was summoned with the original demarcation report nor there is any material on record to depict that the original demarcation report is missing. Consequently, no case for granting permission for secondary evidence of the demarcation report is made out. No case for permitting the plaintiff to lead additional evidence is also made out. The plaintiff referred to the demarcation report in the plaint itself and thus, it is manifest that the demarcation report was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. The suit was filed on 12.3.2004. The plaintiff led his evidence in the year 2008. Thereafter defendants led their evidence. Application Annexure P/3 was moved on 22.7.2010 when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence. There is no explanation why the aforesaid report was not proved in the affirmative evidence at appropriate stage. Thus, no ground for permitting the plaintiff to lead additional evidence is made out. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court. There is, therefore, no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 08, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'