C.R. No. 6665 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6665 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.08.2010 Mool Chand .......... Petitioner Versus Mahabir & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Dabwali, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence, to prove site plan mark 'A' stands declined. The plaintiff / petitioner, filed a suit for permanent injunction by claiming to owner in possession. Along with the plaint, plaintiff / petitioner placed on record site plan Mark 'A'. The suit was contested by the defendant / respondents, by taking a plea, that it was defendant / respondents who were owners in possession of the property, and that the plaintiff had no right or interest in the suit property. The parties led evidence in support of their case. Site C.R. No. 6665 of 2009 -2- ***** plan was only marked and not exhibited. The petitioner closed his evidence. The defendants led evidence thereafter closed their evidence. When the case was at the arguments stage, the petitioner moved an application for leading additional evidence, to prove the site plan mark 'A'. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by recording a finding, that the additional evidence could only be allowed, if the party was unable to produce the said evidence, while leading evidence or if could not be found with due diligence at that stage. The learned trial Court held, that the case of the petitioner, did not satisfy this condition, as the document which was to be proved by additional evidence, was in fact marked document, therefore, was in the knowledge of the petitioner even at the time of filing of suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the additional evidence can also be allowed to do substantial justice, and also in case, where additional evidence is required by the Court, to pass judgment. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the site plan to be proved by additional evidence is very material for the learned Court, to reach at just and proper conclusion, to decide the dispute raised and to do substantial justice. On consideration, I find no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case the petitioner, based his ownership claim on the writing Annexure P-1, which is a Bahi C.R. No. 6665 of 2009 -3- ***** entry. The sale consideration shown in Annexure P-1 is Rs. 1,300/- (Rupees one thousand and three hundred only). It is further mentioned therein, that the possession of the property in dispute has been delivered to the petitioner. This document is not admissible in evidence, for want of registration, therefore, the very basis of ownership is prima facie not proved. Though, it is open to the petitioner to prove, that he is entitled to protect his possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, as Annexure P-1 was executed prior to year 2001, but in order to reach this conclusion, the site plan attached, is clearly irrelevant, as there is no dispute with the site plan, nor it can be treated to be a document, necessary for decision of the dispute inter se between the parties. The learned trial court, was thus justified in rejecting the application, as the motive of the petitioner was to delay the proceedings. The order passed by the learned trial Court, being in accordance with settled law, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 02.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE