IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1252 of 2005 Date of decision: 8.9.09 Gurdip Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.8,15, 17 and 19. **** S.S. SARON, J. The revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’-for short) against the order dated 21.12.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur. The plaintiff/petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby his application to produce on record certified copies of the revenue records i.e. Khatauni Istemal, Khatauni Paimaish, Khatauni Haqdarwar and Misal Haqiat of village Chabbewal in respect of the mushtarka malkan, has been disallowed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divison), Hoshiarpur. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he along with other proprietors of village Chabbewal are the owners in possession of the land measuring 32 kanals as detailed in the plaint, situated in CR No. 1252 of 2005 2 village Chabbewal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 and the gift deed dated 22.7.1997 as also mutation No.6353 entered and sanctioned on the basis of the said gift deed is illegal, void, unconstitutional and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. It is submitted that some of the donors who had no share in the ‘shamlat’ land nor were they proprietors of land in the village were unauthorizedly made to execute a gift deed dated 22.07.1997 in favour of the Punjab State Education Department. The said department was interested to get land and had unauthorizedly got executed the gift deed dated 22.7.1997 from 24 persons out of which Surinder Pal Singh donor and two other donors namely Herbag Singh and Pritam Singh defendants had also given writing that they had no landed property in the village and the question of their shares in the ‘mushtarka malkan’ and ‘hasab rasad khewat’ does not at all arise. In order to prove the said fact, the petitioner had summoned the record of the proprietors of village Chhabbewal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. For the said purpose he on 14.05.2001 deposited the diet money and the process fee for summoning the Halqa Patwari, Chhabbewal along with the relevant record. However, the said record was not produced. Another official namely the Assistant Office Kanungo, Tehsil Office Hoshiarpur was also summoned with the original papers of the scheme of village Chhabbewal. However, both the officials have denied the fact of having the original records. The Punjab State had produced certified copies of some of proprietors and the plaintiff/petitioner CR No. 1252 of 2005 3 had submitted an application for directing the Punjab State to produce the documents of list of proprietors and their share in the land of ‘hasab rasad khewat’ but the said application had been rejected on the plea that no direction had been given. Then the plaintiff/petitioner had filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 CPC on 23.11.2004 and the same had been dismissed in pursuance of the impugned order. It is submitted that since the petitioners had already summoned the record from the respondents because the same was in their custody but they had intentionally not produced the same. Therefore, the record is liable to be summoned. After going through the order passed by the learned trial Court, it may be noticed that one of the factors which weighed with the learned trial Court for dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC was that the said provision stands omitted by the amendment in the CPC. It may, however, be noticed that even though the said provision has been omitted, the same does not affect the inherent powers of the Court to summon the additional evidence for deciding the case. The provision of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC was inserted in the CPC by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f. 1.2.1977. The same stands omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1.7.2002. Therefore, the position as it existed on 1.2.1977 i.e. before the insertion of Rule 17-A to Order 18 would continue and CR No. 1252 of 2005 4 the Court wherever it feels necessary that additional evidence is required for the just decision of the case, can summon the party. The record that is sought to be produced is primarily of the consolidation authorities and it is not such a record which would not easily be available with the consolidation authorities. Besides, no prejudice would be caused in case the record is summoned and is examined. In the circumstances, if one effective opportunity is granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to produce additional evidence on record, the same would not prejudice the rights of the defendants/respondents. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.12.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur is set aside and the plaintiff/petitioner shall be granted one effective opportunity to produce the evidence as has been prayed by him in his application filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 CPC on 23.11.2004. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 8, 2009 Amit/A.kaundal