C.R. No. 700 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 700 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 Amir Chand s/o Sh. Maha Singh, r/o village Shera, Sub Tehsil Madlauda, Tehsil and District Panipat. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus 1. Nathu Ram son of Sh. Chatter Singh, r/o village and P.O. Joshi, Sub Tehsil Madlauda, Tehsil and District Panipat. ...Contesting-Respondent 2. Vijay Kumar s/o Sh. Des Raj; 3. Veena Rani w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar; both r/o H. No. 177, Tehsil Camp, Panipat. 4. Naresh Kumar s/o Sh. Des Raj, r/o 1386/3, Purewal Colony, Panipat. 5. Bishamber Nath s/o Sh. Des Raj, r/o Des Raj Colony, Panipat. 6. Kamlesh Rani; 7. Roji Rani; both d/o Des Raj, r/o Des Raj Colony, Panipat. 8. Smt. Neelam Devi w/o Sh. Amir Chand s/o Sh. Maha Singh, r/o village Shera, Sub Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat. ...Proforma-Respondents C.R. No. 700 of 2008 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Ghangas, Advocate, for contesting respondent No. 1. Respondents No.2 to 8, proforma-respondents. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 20.12.07, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, vide which, the application of the plaintiff, for additional evidence, was allowed. 2. Nathu Ram, plaintiff/respondent No. 1, filed a suit for possession, by way of specific performance, on the basis of the agreement to sell. When the case, was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff, he moved an application, that the defendant/revision- petitioner, be directed, to submit original power of attorney, for the purpose of comparison of his thumb impressions, on the same, with his specimen thumb impressions. That application, was allowed, but the original power of attorney, was not produced by the defendant/revision-petitioner. Ultimately, the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, was closed. 3. Later on, an application, was filed, by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, that earlier defendant No. 7/revision- C.R. No. 700 of 2008 3 petitioner, was directed, to produce the original power of attorney, in the Court. His thumb impressions, were obtained, for comparison. He did not produce the power of attorney. It was stated that, ultimately, the evidence of the plaintiff, was closed. It was prayed that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, be allowed, to produce copy of the power of attorney, for the purpose of comparison of the questioned thumb impressions of defendant No. 7/revision-petitioner, on the same, with his specimen thumb impressions. 4. This application, was opposed by the defendants/respondents, on the ground, that after affording a number of opportunities, to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, his evidence, was closed, by the Court. It was further stated that, once the evidence of the plaintiff, was closed, no opportunity, could be granted, to him, to place, on record, copy of the power of attorney. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, the trial Court, accepted the application. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by Amir Chand, one of the defendants/revision-petitioner. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that once the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, was closed, by the Court, no application, for additional evidence, could be allowed. He further submitted that the power of attorney, sought to be produced, by C.R. No. 700 of 2008 4 way of additional evidence, was very much within the knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. He further submitted that the order impugned was illegal. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1, submitted that the fault lay upon the shoulders of the defendants, as they failed to produce the power of attorney, despite the direction of the Court. He further submitted that instead of getting produced the original power of attorney, the Court closed, his evidence. He further submitted that, it was, in pursuance of the order, which was earlier passed by the Court, that he wanted to produce copy of the power of attorney, for the purpose of comparison of thumb impressions of defendant No. 7/revision-petitioner, with his specimen thumb impressions. He further submitted that the order impugned, was legal and valid. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It was not that efforts, were not made by the contesting respondent, when he was leading his evidence for getting produced the original power of attorney, on which, the questioned thumb impressions of defendant No. 7/revision-petitioner, existed, for comparison of the same with his specimen thumb impressions. Despite directions by the Court, the original power of attorney, was not produced by defendant No. 7/revision-petitioner at the relevant time. C.R. No. 700 of 2008 5 Thus, the fault, lay upon the shoulders of the defendants. If, without getting the document produced, the Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff, was not required to be blamed. In fact, the application, for production of the power of attorney, had already been allowed by the Court, when the plaintiff, was leading evidence. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the Court below, was right, in allowing the application, for additional evidence. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is dismissed. The parties, are directed to appear, in the trial Court, on 24.09.09, at 10.00 AM sharp, for further proceedings. 25.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE