IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.236 of 2008 Date of decision : July 23, 2010 Jagroop Singh and others …Petitioners. Versus Piar Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) CMP No.438/2009 Heard. Name of respondent No.7 Smt. Rajo Devi is permitted to be deleted from the Memo of Parties of this petition only. Application stands disposed of. CMPMO No.236/2008 A partition suit has been filed by the petitioners, in respect of certain property, which is claimed to be joint of the parties, i.e. the petitioners and the respondents (defendants). It appears that there is some dispute about the extent of shares of the parties. After both the sides had closed their evidence, petitioners filed an application for producing copies of Misl Hakiat and Shajra for the year 1910-11 and also jamabandi for year 2002-2003. That application has been rejected by the trial Court, with the observation that the documents are not relevant and also Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… that the application having been made after the close of evidence, the other side will have no right to lead evidence in rebuttal, in case the application is allowed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. Learned trial Court has not explained how the documents are not relevant and, therefore, it cannot be said whether the documents are not relevant or are relevant. This question can be looked into, at the time of the final decision of the suit. As regards the ground that the other side will have no right of rebuttal, well settled principle is that when a party is allowed to lead additional evidence, the other party has the right to rebut that evidence. 4. In view of the abovestated position, the present petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the application of the petitioner for leading additional evidence, in the form of the aforesaid documents, is allowed. It is made clear that the documents, being per se admissible in evidence, shall be tendered in evidence and no witness shall be allowed to be summoned, by way of additional evidence. Respondents shall be afforded an opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, in view of the disposal of the main petition. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 4th August, 2010. July 23, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J