Civil Revision No. 7385 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7385 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 01.12.2011 Jaswinder Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Gamdoor Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Jaswinder Singh and others, the petitioners have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.11.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot vide which their application for grant of time of one week to produce certified copies of eleven sale deeds regarding the land in dispute has been dismissed. The petitioners had brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the properties in question and from dispossessing them therefrom as also for declaration to the effect that the civil court decree dated 22.4.1981 passed by Shri M.S. Ahluwalia, Senior Sub Judge, Faridkot in suit titled as “Gamdoor Singh v. Gurbachan Singh” is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The case was fixed for 19.11.2011 for evidence of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs tendered Civil Revision No. 7385 of 2011 --2-- a copy of khasra girdawari in the evidence alongwith a copy of mutation. He had filed an application for grant of time of one week to produce certified copies of eleven sale deeds. The request was declined for the simple reason that vide order dated 05.09.2011, learned District Judge, Faridkot had directed grant of three opportunities to the plaintiffs and three to the defendants and the plaintiffs had already availed their three opportunities. The question as to whether those sale deeds are admissible in evidence and could be tendered in evidence without further evidence is a different question. What this court is to consider at this stage is that the request of the plaintiffs to grant one weeks' time to tender certified copies of eleven sale deeds was declined for the reason that in compliance with the order of learned District Judge, Faridkot dated 05.09.2011 three opportunities had already been availed by the plaintiffs and they were not entitled to further adjournment. While considering the aspect of grant of adjournment, the court has to see that in grant or refusal of the adjournment, the cause of justice should not be allowed to suffer. The sale deeds, the certified copies of which were applied for and were sought to be tendered are said to be 30 years old documents and they are said to relate to the suit land. Those documents if were helpful to throw light on the controversy involved in the suit should have been received in evidence and grant of adjournment of one week for those documents should not have been refused. Civil Revision No. 7385 of 2011 --3-- In these circumstances, keeping in view the interest of justice, learned trial court should have granted the desired adjournment and learned trial court does not seem to be justified in declining the same and closing the evidence of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, directing learned trial court to grant a short adjournment to the plaintiffs to tender those documents, which should be taken in evidence keeping in view the aspects of their admissibility and proof. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 01.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh