C.R. No. 2644 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2644 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.07.2010 Mubin & others .......... Petitioners Versus Ratti Khan & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.3.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Nuh, vide which the application moved by the petitioners for leading additional evidence, stands dismissed. The petitioners challenged the sale deed executed by Ratti Khan, on the plea, that part of the land sold is under the ownership of the petitioners qua which Ratti Khan had no right of sale. The suit was opposed on the plea that Sumer Khan, grandfather of the petitioners and respondent No.6 were the original owners of the property. However, there was an earlier dispute between Ratti khan, petitioners and their father, in which the matter C.R. No. 2644 of 2010 -2- **** was compromised. In the said compromise Khasra No. 162 measuring 1 Kanal 2 Marlas had fallen to the share of Ratti Khan, whereas Khasra No. 161 measuring 10 Marla and Khasra No. 73 measuring 1 Kanal fell to the petitioners and Sumer Khan. The case of the plaintiff / petitioners is, that in spite of the fact that Ratti Khan was the owner of 1 Kanal 2 Marla land, but he sold whole of the property. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case moved an application to bring on record two mutations for the year1995, vide which the property in pursuance to the compromise deed was entered in their names. The learned trial Court dismissed the application, only for the reason, that though the mutations were sanctioned in the year 1995, the application for additional evidence was moved only in the year 2009, and there was no explanation forthcoming as to why the same was not filed when evidence was led in affirmative. The learned trial Court also recorded a finding, that the evidence sought to be led was within the knowledge of the petitioners, could be found with due diligence, and rejected the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the additional evidence sought to be led was such which was very material for decision of the case, and was necessary for the Court to adjudicate the dispute effectively and to pass judgment qua the dispute raised, therefore, the delay, if any, for non-production of the additional evidence could not be a ground to reject the application moved by the petitioner, as C.R. No. 2644 of 2010 -3- **** in such situation respondents could have been compensated with costs. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order by claiming, that once admittedly the mutations are of the year 1995, and were within the knowledge of the petitioners, having failed to produce the same at relevant time, could not be allowed to do so by way of additional evidence, as allowing of the application would amount to filling of lacuna in the case. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Rules are hand made and meant for advancement of justice, additional evidence sought to be adduced was necessary for proper adjudication of the case and otherwise required by the Court to adjudicate the actual position between the parties, is required to be allowed, the application could not be rejected merely on account of delay, as the respondents should have been compensated in terms of costs. The additional evidence is allowed, which is documentary in nature and the authenticity of which is not doubted and is otherwise material for the Court to arrive at just decision of the case. Consequently, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioners for leading additional evidence is allowed. However, this shall be subject to payment of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) as costs. 01.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE