C.R NO. 7076 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R NO. 7076 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 08.04.2010 Inder Raj ..Petitioner versus Prem Lata and others. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kamalpreet Kaur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is a revision against the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula (Annexure P-2) vide which the application for adducing additional evidence has been dismissed. The plaintiff now petitioner, alleged himself to be the owner in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of Agreement to Sell and Will dated 28.07.1977, alleged to be executed by Ram Narain-Purchaser in the interest of respondents No.2 and 3. The petitioner moved an application to examine C.R NO. 7076 OF 2009 -2- Mr.Ram Saran Dass, Advocate and Clerk of the Sub Registrar office, Chandigarh to prove the Will dated 28.07.1977. The said application was contested by the defendants and ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the application. It was observed that issues were framed on 06.08.1999. The evidence of the plaintiff continued up to 08.10.2002 and thereafter, the evidence was closed. The said order has not been challenged. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 08.05.2009, the present revision petition has been filed for allowing the plaintiff-petitioner to produce the above said evidence. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Will has already been exhibited but the legal requirement of examination of one witness to the Will has to be completed. The Clerk has to be summoned to produce the record of registered Will, as well as, General Power of Attorney. In authority “Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India” (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that although the provision under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC has been specifically deleted, but where the evidence is essential for just decision of the case, in that case the evidence should be allowed. The evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiff is material and goes to the root of the C.R NO. 7076 OF 2009 -3- case. According to the plaintiff, the deceased Ram Narain executed Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Will in his favour and all his rights have been transferred in favour of the plaintiff. So, in these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the evidence sought to be produced is essential for the just decision of the case. However, the fact remains that there is delay in filing the application. However, the opposite party can be compensated by paying costs. So, the revision petition stands allowed and the impugned order stands set-aside subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. The petitioner is allowed to lead additional evidence by taking dasti summons of the witness. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 07.05.2010. Disposed of. APRIL 08, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE