IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.07.2010 C.R.No.5822 of 2009 Ram Phool and others ...Petitioners Versus Pavitra and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 01.09.2009, whereby the application for permission to lead additional evidence, so as to produce mutation in respect of inheritance of estate on the death of Munshi son of Bankey, was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioners have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they have acquired occupancy rights in the suit land in terms of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting and Proprietary Right) Act, 1952. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Munshi son of Bankey is Gair Marusi Awal, whereas the plaintiffs are Gair Marusi Doyam and thus, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the Gair Marusi Awal are not impleaded as party in the suit. In appeal, the petitioners sought to produce the mutation of death of Munshi son of Bankey, to prove that after his death, the property rights of C.R.No. 5822 of 2009 Munshi son of Bankey were inherited by the plaintiffs. It is the said application, which has been declined by the learned first Appellate Court on the ground that the stand of the plaintiffs that the copy was not available is not tenable, as the mutation is a public document and the plaintiffs should have obtained copy of the mutation. It has been found that nothing has been brought on record to show that an effort was made by the petitioners to produce the copy of the mutation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the mutation after the death of Munshi son of Bankey is the document, the authenticity of which cannot be disputed. It is a document of public record. May the petitioners have moved to produce such document after some delay, but the defendants can be compensated for producing the same with some delay. But to decline the production of such document for the reason that the plaintiffs are not entitled to produce such document is not tenable in law. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiffs wish to fill up the lacuna in the trial by producing the additional evidence in appeal. The mutation of death of Munshi son of Bankey is of the year 1971, whereas the suit has been filed in the year 1998. It is, thus, apparent that the plaintiffs were negligent in producing the copy of the mutation during the course of trial. But keeping in view the fact that the mutation is a document, the authenticity of which is not in dispute being a document from the public record, therefore, the plaintiffs are permitted to produce such document subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court is set aside. The plaintiff-petitioners are permitted to 2 C.R.No. 5822 of 2009 produce mutation of death of Munshi son of Bankey in evidence. It shall be open to the learned first Appellate Court to grant opportunity to the defendants to rebut the evidence, so produced by the plaintiff-petitioners in accordance with law. 05.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3