C.R.No.6 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.6 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 4, 2011 Smt.Santro Devi @ Santos .....Petitioner v. Mauji Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Y.P.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.15-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.6 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.12.2010, Annexure P3, vide which application of the petitioner for producing additional evidence was rejected by learned Additional Civil Judge, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court dismissing the application of petitioner for producing additional evidence. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner-plaintiff is the only daughter and sole heir of her father late Shri Jage Ram, who died in June 2003, and however, later on, she came to know that the land has been transferred in the name of respondent no.1- Mauji Ram and Hoshiar Singh- predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.2 and 3 and Badlu Ram-predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.4 to 6 by virtue of decree dated 6.4.1990, titled as Mauji Ram and other v. Jage Ram and others and in this way fraud has been committed upon her and hence she C.R.No.6 of 2011 (O&M) -2- challenged the said decree before learned civil Judge. Further contends that land in dispute is ancestral one which was devolved upon the father of the petitioner from his fore-fathers. Hence, it is contended that in order to prove ancestral nature of land, petitioner-plaintiff intends to produce certified copy of mutation of inheritance of Lehri in favour of father of petitioner dated 3.6.1968. Further contends that the said document could not be produced inadvertently by counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and hence petitioner-plaintiff should not be allowed to suffer due to the negligent act of her counsel. Further contends that the application for additional evidence has been dismissed by learned trial Court merely on the ground that the evidence sought to be produced has not been mentioned in the application for additional evidence. It is further contended that the same is also lapse on the part of counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, who is an illiterate lady. Hence, it is contended that only one opportunity may be granted to petitioner-plaintiff to produce copy of mutation of inheritance of deceased Lehri, dated 3.6.1968. He has also produced photo-copy of the said mutation, which is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge, dated 16.12.2010 is modified to the extent that petitioner-plaintiff is granted one opportunity to produce certified copy of mutation dated 3.6.1968 regarding inheritance of land of deceased Lehri subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as cost. However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this order shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case on merits by learned trial Court. Disposed of accordingly. 4.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge