IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4941 of 2005 Date of decision:26.05.2009 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation ...Petitioner versus Shri Pritam Singh Mural and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Harbhajan Singh Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Goel and Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocates, for the respondents. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against an order dismissing an application filed at the instance of the plaintiff for letting in additional evidence. The application was rejected on the ground of laches, that the evidence had been completed and the application was being filed to receive a document which by the exercise of due diligence, the plaintiff could have produced even before the commencement of the trial. 2. The additional document which was sought to be produced was a letter of authority to maintain the action by the person who was prosecuting the case on behalf of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. The interest of a public institution ought not to suffer by a Civil Revision No.4941 of 2005 - 2 - technical objection relating to want of competency of a person to prosecute the case. If there was a delay in filing the petition, the appropriate reparation could have been made by the Court by visiting the party with costs. The rejection out of reckoning the additional document would subvert the course of justice. 3. Even while saying that the delay could have been compensated by cost, having regard to the fact that the trial has stood stayed by the pendency of the Civil Revision and the inability of the plaintiff to prosecute the claim through suit within reasonable time, itself should be taken as a harsh punishment to the plaintiff for the lapse that if had committed. The order of the Court below, under the circumstances, is set aside and the plaintiff shall bring the additional evidence and prove the same in accordance with law. 4. Having regard to the suit that is reported to have been instituted in the year 1985, the trial Court shall take up the case immediately on receipt of the records and conclude the evidence within a period of two months. The defendant shall also be at liberty to bring any evidence in rebuttal of the document which is now sought to be introduced by the additional evidence. 5. The Civil Revision is allowed in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 26.05.2009 sanjeev