Civil Revision No.840 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.840 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 4, 2011 Naresh Kumar Sanghi .....Petitioner v. Jamoti Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.3372-CII of 2011 1. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.840 of 2011 2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 31.1.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Narnaul, and for allowing the application dated 29.1.2011 filed by the petitioner-defendant for leading additional evidence. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. 4. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent-plaintiffs against present petitioner-defendant on the ground that they are successors of Badri Parshad, who died in the year 1980, who was in possession of the property in dispute as tenant under previous owner and after death of Badri Parshad, they came in possession as tenant. It was further pleaded that on 3.7.2001, the present petitioner had purchased the property in question and, however, rights of present respondents of the property in dispute as tenant Civil Revision No.840 of 2011(O&M) -2- are continuing and hence, present petitioner-defendant was sought to be restrained from interfering in their possession as tenant. 5. In the written statement, plea was taken by present petitioner- defendant that he is owner in possession of the property in question and that respondents are having no concern with the said property and that they are not in possession of the property in dispute as tenant. 6. Issues were framed by learned trial Court. Evidence of plaintiff was concluded on 4.6.2008. Sufficient opportunities were given to defendant to adduce the evidence by learned trial Court. However, when last opportunity was granted by learned trial court to petitioner-defendant, only then one witness was examined and after tendering some documents, his evidence was closed by counsel for the defendant and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, when application was moved on behalf of the defendant for leading additional evidence praying for examining witnesses of rent note dated 27.8.1982 and prayer was also made to get the signatures compared from hand writing and finger print expert. The said application was dismissed by learned trial Court on 22.10.2009. Petitioner- defendant preferred revision petition against the said order before this Court and vide order dated 2.1.2010, this Court granted one opportunity to examine Baijnath and the legal representatives of Raja Ram to prove the rent note. No request was made before this Court for allowing defendant to get the signatures of Badri Parshad compared and to examine any handwriting and finger print expert. After order passed by this Court, two witnesses have already been examined by petitioner-defendant. It was thereafter that another application for leading additional evidence has been filed by petitioner-defendant by stating that Badri Parshad had not died in the year 1980 and, however, in fact, Badri Parshad died on 1.8.1988 and hence, now petitioner-defendant has been able to procure death certificate of Badri Parshad and hence, prayer is made to tender original death certificate of Badri Parshad. The other prayer made is that he be allowed to tender and prove another rent note dated 22.11.1982, allegedly executed by Badri Parshad. 7. Learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by petitioner-defendant by observing as under:- “ It is argued on behalf of defendant that the documents in Civil Revision No.840 of 2011(O&M) -3- question to be produced in additional evidence are material documents to decide the controversy and additional evidence can be allowed at any stage. But as per record, the controversy is regarding the rent note dated 27.8.1982 for which a specific issue has been framed on 26.3.2002 with the onus upon defendant to prove execution of this rent note and defendant has already led his entire evidence. On this issue, he even led additional evidence as per order passed by Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court granted only one opportunity to defendant to examine two witnesses. Plaintiffs have sought decree for permanent injunction regarding premises in their possession. There is no issue regarding date of death of Badri Parshad and even otherwise evidence regarding due execution of rent note dated 27.8.1982 was required to be led by defendant when he was granted opportunities. It cannot be said that death certificate and rent note dated 27.8.1982 were not in the notice and knowledge of the defendant as the said documents are very old document. The law cited on behalf of the defendant is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case defendant has already led his evidence and also the additional evidence. Only one opportunity was granted by Hon'ble High Court to lead additional evidence. Hence, now defendant cannot be allowed to produce further additional evidence when he did not exercise any due diligence while leading his evidence or additional evidence as ordered by Hon'ble High Court in the case, which relates to the year 2001 and is included in the list of Samadhan 2010 and requires speedy disposal as per directions of Hon'ble High Court. Hence, in view of the entire discussion, application moved on behalf of defendant is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/- to be deposited in District Legal Aid Fund.” 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that he restricts the prayer of petitioner -defendant for producing original death certification of Badri Parshad, issued by Sub Registrar, Civil Revision No.840 of 2011(O&M) -4- Narnaul, which is per se admissible in evidence and that he does not want to press his prayer for tendering and proving another rent note dated 22.11.1982. 9. As is clear from the aforementioned facts, petitioner-defendant was negligent in pursuing his case causing inordinate delay in decision of the suit, which pertains to the year 2001. Earlier as well, he had filed an application for additional evidence and one opportunity was granted to him by this Court to lead additional evidence. 10. However, petitioner-defendant has restricted his claim only to tender the death certificate of Badri Parshad, which is a public document issued by competent authority. So far as the fact that the action of petitioner-defendant has caused inordinate delay in decision of the present suit, for that the other party can be compensated by way of cost. 11. Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. The impugned order passed by learned trial Court is modified to the extent that petitioner-defendant be permitted to tender original death certificate of Badri Parshad, issued by competent authority, which is a public document, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. 12. Disposed of accordingly. 4.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge