CR No.4177 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4177 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.08.2011 Rajbir Kaur ..... Petitioner Versus Karamjit Singh ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) Sh. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner at the outset has tendered unconditional apology to this Court and submitted that due to oversight, wrong prayer has been made in the present petition. Counsel states in fact the prayer clause should read as under:- “It is respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated 23.05.2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri whereby application filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-2) has been dismissed be set aside and an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead additional evidence to prove copy of Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002, which is already on record.” Counsel for the respondent has no objection in case petitioner is permitted to make abovesaid prayer for consideration. The present reision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 23.05.2011 whereby the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dhuri had declined the application (Annexure P-2) to afford one CR No.4177 of 2011 (O&M) -2- opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to prove on record Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002. Sh. Nandan Jindal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff has stated that due to the oversight Jamabandi brought on record could not be exhibited. It is stated that petitioner-wife had filed a suit for maintenance and it was prayed that the maintenance awarded be considered as charge on the property mentioned in the Jamabandi. Sh. Jain appearing for the respondent has stated that petitioner/plaintiff-wife was not diligent enough to discharge necessary onus. Counsel states that evidence in the present case was closed on 29.07.2008 whereas this application was filed at a very belated stage when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that during the course of the trial, due to inadvertence mistake do occur, the journey of the Court is to dispense justice, not to punish any body for bona fide mistake. Thus due to oversight, Jamabandi which is already on record, could not be exhibited, that being a bona fide error same can be corrected. Such a correction of the error cannot be said to be filling up of the lacuna as the defendant-husband was aware that the Jamabandi was on the record. Hence, civil revision petition is accepted. Application for additional evidence is allowed. Petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to prove Jamabandi on record in accordance with provisions of law. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 09.08.2011 JUDGE manju