Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2007 Date of decision: 2.9. 2009 Reshami and others ......petitioners Versus Daya Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate. for the petitioner. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 13 to 22 and 28 to 44. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.8.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jhajjar. Plaintiffs-petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction basing their claim on mortgage deed dated 7.6.1890. After competition of pleadings of the parties, issues were Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2007 2 framed by the trial Court. Admittedly, the plaintiffs closed their evidence in the year 2004 and the defendants closed their evidence on 17.8.2005. After conclusion of defendants' evidence, the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs and arguments. Then the plaintiffs moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence and vide the impugned order the said application filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the application for additional evidence was liable to be allowed as the mortgage deed now sought to be proved on record has been attached with the plaint. However, due to inadvertence, the same could not be proved on record. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the certified copy of the mortgage deed was not per se admissible in evidence. No application had been moved by the plaintiffs to prove the same by leading secondary evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, the mortgage deed dated 7.6.1890 was placed on record along with the plaint. A specific issue with regard to mortgage deed was also framed by the trial Court but the plaintiffs failed to prove the mortgage deed on record in accordance with law. The original mortgage deed is not forthcoming on record and the Civil Revision No. 5138 of 2007 3 plaintiffs want to prove the certified copy of the mortgage deed. The same is not per se admissible in evidence as it is not a public document. The certified copy could only be proved after seeking permission for proving the same by way of secondary evidence. In these circumstances, the application for permission to lead additional evidence has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE Setember 02, 2009 anita