IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2969 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 10, 2010 Hardeep Singh ….Petitioner Versus Mehar Kaur and another. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. H.N.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. S.D. Anand, J. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a plea before the learned Trial Court for being allowed to examine the “Ex- Sub Registrar, Registry Clerk (Posted on 21.05.1980 at Kharar), Karamjit Singh Sidhu, Deed Writer, Kharar” and also “to produce judgment and decree dated 31.03.2003 in the suit titled as Sukh Raj versus K.S. Kang and K.S.Kang versus Sukh Raj, decided on 28.11.2007 by the Court of Sh. G.S. Saran, A.D.J., Ropar”. There also was a request for being allowed to summon the “concerned clerk along C.R. No. 2969 of 2008 with file of plot/R number in dispute”. It was indicated, in the application itself, that the plea aforementioned may be, in the alternative, allowed as an additional evidence. The learned Trial Court declined the plea in toto by observing that the judgment under reference had no relevancy to the present case. Qua the other part of the proposed evidence, it was observed that the plea was not competent on account of the deletion of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC w.e.f. 01.07.2002. It was also observed that as the suit filed was for the possession, by way of specific performance, of the property in suit, there is no relevancy of the plaintiff – petitioner applying for adducing evidence to prove the Will dated 21.05.1980. In that context, it was noticed that the plea for possession was based upon agreement to sell dated 21.05.1980. Insofar as the judgment aforementioned is concerned, it is common ground that it is not in inter- partes and it also has nothing to do with the property in suit. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the judgment aforementioned would enable the learned Trial Court to take an appropriate view because a similar controversy arose in the judgment aforementioned. It is neither here nor there for the learned counsel to say 2 C.R. No. 2969 of 2008 so. A judgment which is not inter-partes and which further has no relatability to the property in suit cannot be allowed reception, even if the controversy therein pertained to that very point which is pending in the another suit. Insofar as the other documents are concerned, there also the petitioner is not on a firmer footing. The present suit is based upon agreement to sell dated 21.05.1980. It is, thus, not relevant for the petitioner to request the leave of the Court to have the evidence about Will dated 21.05.1980 on record. Even otherwise, both the parties have already closed their evidence and the matter had been fixed for arguments when the plea aforementioned came about. The petition is held to devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. The interim order dated 22.05.2008 passed by this Court shall stand vacated forthwith. The vacation of the stay order shall be intimated to the learned Trial Court forthwith. February 10, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3