Civil Revision No.4810 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4810 of 2011 Date of Decision:10.08.2011 Attar Khan and others .....Petitioners Versus Chaman and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Attar Khan and others-petitioner- plaintiffs(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that they along with proforma respondent-defendants have become absolute owners in possession of the suit property, having acquired the occupancy rights and the contrary revenue entries are liable to be rectified, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Chaman and others- respondent-contesting defendants(for brevity “the defendants”) from alienating the suit property in any manner. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiffs filed an application for additional evidence, which was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 27.07.2011. 3. The petitioner-plaintiffs did not feel satisfied with the impugned decision of the trial Court and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Civil Revision No.4810 of 2011 2 Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent- defendants, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when they can be compensated with adequate costs in this respect. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that the petitioners filed the application for additional evidence to produce Liyakat son of Nawal Khan in oral evidence and rapat roznamcha and the copy of khasra Girdawari pertaining to crops Kharif 1997 to Rabi 1999, as documentary evidence, which according to the petitioners, could not be produced due to misunderstanding and inadvertence, on the part of their counsel. 7. The main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court, in dismissing the application for additional evidence of the petitioners was, that the proposed evidence was well within their knowledge from the very beginning and as the case is at its fag end, therefore, they cannot be permitted to lead fresh evidence. Here, to my mind, the trial Court committed the material, procedural irregularity in this regard. 8. Ex facie, it may be true that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the petitioners, was in their knowledge, but that ipso facto is not a ground to deny the production of additional evidence in this relevant context. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioners, to produce the documentary evidence. It is not a matter of dispute that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners, are the revenue record(rapat roznamcha and khasra girdawari). In my view, the production of additional documentary evidence, is essential to decide Civil Revision No.4810 of 2011 3 the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial, particularly when the opposite side can be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant behalf. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiffs, to produce only indicated documents, as additional evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner-plaintiffs to the defendants. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the defendants. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for strict compliance. August 10, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.4810 of 2011 4 C.M.No.19245-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.4810 of 2011 Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 10, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE