Civil Revision No. 4187 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4187 of 2011 (O & M) Date of decision:-22.12.2011 M/s Wood Tech. Plot No.1225, MIE, Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar through its proprietor Sh. Madan Mohan Sharma ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Financial Corporation and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The prayer was made to set aside the sale effected by the defendant-Corporation of the premises bearing No.1225 building, machinery, raw material at MIE area, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and the defendants be directed to settle the accounts to reduce the depreciation cost w.e.f. 18.10.2005, the exorbitant rate of interest, wave of penal interest and to delete the interest and security charges w.e.f. 18.10.2005 and get restored the SSI license and tax exemption from the authorities by submitting the Civil Revision No. 4187 of 2011 -2- proper information. On 6.9.2008 the issues were framed in the suit and the plaintiff was to lead evidence. On 22.12.2008 the plaintiff had moved an application under RTI Act to the HFC authorities to give details of the communications effected between the plaintiff and Corporation to settle the accounts so that it could be led in the evidence. This information was supplied to the petitioner under RTI Act on 23.3.2010. However, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 21.12.2009. After getting this information an application was moved on 13.10.2010. After seven months of getting the information this application was moved to led additional evidence. No doubt there is delay of seven months for moving this application to lead additional evidence, however, keeping in view that the suit of the plaintiff was filed in 2008 and immediately thereafter an application had been moved in December 2008 to HFC to supply the requisite information under RTI Act and the HFC took two years to do the needful, the delay for moving the application is not to go against the plaintiff. However, the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed to avoid unnecessary delay in concluding the trial. Only those documents are to be led in additional evidence, which are essential for final adjudication of the case. The civil revision is allowed and the order dated 16.2.2011 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the Civil Revision No. 4187 of 2011 -3- plaintiff to lead the following documents as additional evidence subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs :- LIST OF DOCUMENTS Sr. No. Mark Date of document 1 A 23.06.2000 Pre-sanction report 2 B 06.07,2000 Minutes of the Arbitrary Committee Meeting 3 C Statement showing affect of wrong entries of Rs.2 lacs and interested charged thereof 4 D 16.09.2003 Recall of Loan letter 7 G 05.12,2003 HFC for rephrasing of loan 8 Abstract from statement of accounts of indicating payments due and payments made 12 J Recall proforma 13 K 20.12.2005 Possession Report 14 L 18.10.2005 Inventory Report 18 Tender Agenda 21 Q 10.07,2007 HFC Letter 22 31.10.2007 HFC letter confirming balance of Rs.40,39,273/- as on 18.10.2005 23 12.11,2007 HFC Letter 24 R HFC Agreement to sell with auction purchaser 25 S HFC NPA Policy 26 T 31.10.2007 HFC letter with statement of account 27 U 10.03,2009 HFC letter to woodtech regarding NPA December 22, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE