C.R No. 1705 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 1705 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : March 15, 2010 Raj Kumar Singh and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Amar Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. J.S.Chandail, Advocate for the petitioners. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This petition has been filed against the order dated 23.2.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Panchkula dismissing the application under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC, filed by the petitioners. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed a suit claiming declaration that the Division of the Jagir Estate of Ramgarh made by late Mian Ajmer Singh from time to time are in-effective, in-operative and illegal qua the rights of respondent No.1. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff had filed an attested copy of a Notification No.892R, dated 24.8.1945 issued by the Revenue Department of the State of Punjab in support of his C.R No. 1705 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: case. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the written statement, an objection was taken that this was not an original document as envisaged by Order 7 of the CPC. However, despite this objection, even subsequently the original of the said document was not filed. In the circumstances, the petitioners moved the instant application for directing respondent No.1 to place the original of the aforesaid notification on record. The learned trial Court found that respondent No.1 had placed on record the attested copy of the said document from the Archives Department and rejected the application of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the first instance even if the said document was accepted, it can have no effect on the case. In my opinion, this is a matter relating to the merit of the evidentiary value of this document and the petitioners would be better advised to raise this point at an appropriate stage before the trial Court. It is further argued that when respondent No.1 stepped into the witness box and sought to place reliance on this document, again an objection was raised that this was not the original document and that at that stage respondent No.1 had undertaken to produce the original document. In my opinion, whatever benefit the petitioners want to take from the undertaking made by respondent No.1, and the fact of his not being able to fulfill the same, are matters of argument which may be taken by the petitioners before the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the aforesaid notification has wrongly been exhibited. There is a catena of judgments that mere execution of a document does not mean that a propounder is not bound C.R No. 1705 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: to prove the same. Consequently, in my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality/irregularity which would be liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 15, 2010. JUDGE `kk'