IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2242 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.3.2009 Inder Kumar Jain ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-petitioner applied for the leave of the Court for issuance of a direction to the defendants-respondents to produce certain official documents on the premise that those would have a very relevant bearing on the disposal of the controversy touching the validity or otherwise of the impugned proceedings for ejectment. The learned Trial Court declined the plea but observed that the plaintiff-petitioner could summon the relevant record. In the context of the factual position aforementioned, the learned counsel informs at the bar that though the relevant record had been requisitioned at the trial, (at a time subsequent to the grant of the order under challenge) the witnesses who produced it were not very forthcoming qua the contents thereof. It is argued that the issuance of a direction to the respondents to produce that record in entirety would be in the larger interest of the public because there are plenty of such like properties which were hitherto a part of the cantonment area and which, on their transfer to the civil administration, are termed as excised area. The present does not purport to be public interest litigation. It is, obviously, a controversy between the arrayed parties. If a witness, who had been summoned alongwith record, made a statement which was not very forthcoming in any manner, it will be for the petitioner to raise whatever plea in the context is available to him before the learned Trial court. Disposed of accordingly. March 09, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge