Civil Revision No. 3112 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3112 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2009 Thakur Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Sadhu Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, vide which the application moved by the petitioners herein for leading additional evidence stands partly allowed. The plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for declaration claiming to be the owners in possession of the land measuring 188 kanals 8 marlas Civil Revision No. 3112 of 2008 (O&M) -2- with consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming ownership, on oral 'Will', said to have been executed by late Santa Singh husband of Gurdial Kaur defendant No. 1. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 Gurdial Kaur died and petitioners herein were brought on record as legal representatives of Gurdial Kaur, on the basis of registered 'Will' said to have been executed in their favour. The evidence of the plaintiff/respondents was closed on 10.11.2007 by tendering in evidence Ex. P-6 to Ex. P-12. Out of the exhibited documents, P-10 is the copy of rapat roznamcha, whereas P-11 is the copy of mutation. The petitioner/defendants also closed their evidence on 20.2.2008. The defendant/petitioners, therefore, moved an application for leading additional evidence, prima facie on the ground, that the documents produced by the plaintiff/respondents in their evidence by way of documentary evidence were, in fact, forged and fabricated documents. In support of the stand taken, the petitioners placed on record the certified copy of the mutation as well as copy of rapat roznamcha so as to prove the factum of forgery by the plaintiff/respondents. The learned trial Court allowed the application partly by permitting the petitioners to get the copy of mutation, in favour of Gurdial Kaur "exhibited". The request of the petitioners to examine the Patwari to prove manipulation, was rejected. The learned trial Court has been pleased to reject the application primarily on the ground, that the documents were already on Civil Revision No. 3112 of 2008 (O&M) -3- record and manipulation, if any, was apparent to the naked eye, which could be considered at the time of arguments. The learned trial Court has also been pleased to hold, that additional evidence sought to be produced was not necessary for the Court to pronounce the judgment, as it was not directly concerned with the matter in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order primarily on the ground, that the learned trial Court committed an error in holding, that the evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was not relevant to the controversy. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that by way of documents produced by the plaintiff/respondents, they had sought to prove on record that oral 'Will' was executed by Santa Singh, as mentioned in Ex. P-11, though in the certified copy, as produced by the petitioners, there is no mention, about oral 'Will'. It is not in dispute, that Ex. P-6 to P-12 were got exhibited merely by production and not by getting it proved from any revenue officer. It is for the said reason that there arose necessity to examine the revenue officer, to prove the authenticity of the documents, and to prove as to whether the documents produced by the respondents were genuine or the one produced by the petitioners herein were genuine documents. The controversy as to whether oral 'Will' was executed by Santa Singh, is directly an issue between the parties. The evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, therefore, is necessary to enable the Court to reach at a just conclusion and adjudicate the dispute between the parties effectively. Civil Revision No. 3112 of 2008 (O&M) -4- The learned counsel for the respondents, however, states that suit is pending since 2001 and he prays that direction be issued to the learned trial Court to expedite the hearing of the case. In view of what has been stated above, this revision petition is allowed, a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to grant one opportunity with the assistance of the Court to the petitioners to produce the additional evidence, as prayed in the application. Keeping in view, that the suit is pending since 2001, the learned trial Court is further directed to expedite the hearing of the case, and dispose of the suit preferably within six months, from receipt of certified copy of this order. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 13, 2009 R.S.