Civil Revision No.5926 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5926 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Rajbir Singh .......Petitioner Versus Estate Office, HUDA, Jind .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.UK Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. <><><> AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the trial Court whereby an application filed by him to examine the concerned Clerk of Estate Office, HUDA and SDEO, HUDA, Jind as witnesses along with the record has been declined. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case may be noticed here: The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction to the defendant-respondent to deliver the complete possession of plot No.4630, Sector 11, Extn. Jind, total measuring 162 Sq.Mtrs. or 193.75 Sq.Yards i.e. 9X18 meters, which was allotted to him vide allotment memo No.4408 dated 30.10.2000 at the rate of Rs.900/- per Sq.Yard. The suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and final arguments when an application was moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence. In the application, the petitioner requested that dealing clerk in the office of Estate Civil Revision No.5926 of 2011 2 Officer, HUDA at Jind as well as SDEO, HUDA along with complete record of rates of plots sold by HUDA, Jind in Sectors 7 and 8 and record regarding DPC to BR 4 and 5 Forms for the plots at Sr.Nos.4620 to 4628 & 4629 to 4637, Sector 11, Urban Estate, Jind be summoned by way of additional evidence. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that the said documents and the witnesses could have been examined by the plaintiff-petitioner at the time when he led evidence in affirmative. It was further observed that the plaintiff-petitioner wanted to re-open the case and the evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence had no relation with the pleadings, and that the application was filed only as a delaying tactics and for no other purpose. The trial Court made the following observations in that regard: “In the eyes of law, Court can allow this application only if it is necessary for serving the interest of justice. Plaintiff at this stage by filing the present application wants to examine clerk of Estate Officer, HUDA Jind and SDEO, HUDA Jind along with complete record of rate of plots recently sold by HUDA Jind in Sector No.7 and 8, record regarding DPC to BR- 4 and 5 Forms for plots Sr.No.4620 to 4628 and 4629 to 4637, Sector No.11, Urban Estate, Jind. All these things were in the knowledge of applicant. Moreover, applicant adduced all the evidence in affirmative evidence. Since the applicant wants to re-open the case by introducing strange evidence which is quite away from the pleading of plaintiff. Therefore, this application in my view has been moved only for delaying tactics but no purpose else. Hence, this application deserves dismissal and Civil Revision No.5926 of 2011 3 accordingly, it is dismissed with costs of Rs.1100/- to be paid by applicant to the defendant. Application is disposed of accordingly.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the interest of justice and to do substantial justice between the parties, the evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiff-petitioner was germane to the just decision of the suit. However, on a specific query put to the learned counsel as to what was the relevancy of the evidence sought to be led by way of additional evidence, with the controversy involved in the suit, learned counsel was unable to give any satisfactory reply. He was also unable to show that there was any legal error in the order under revision. No infirmity could be pointed out in the order impugned in the revision petition. 5. Finding no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision petition is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) September 26, 2011 JUDGE SRM