C. R. No. 1058 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1058 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 20, 2010 State of Punjab .... Petitioner Vs. Narinder Kumar Doomra .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the petitioner – State. Mr. Yogesh Aneja, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant – State of Punjab has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 29.09.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka, thereby dismissing defendant's application for additional evidence. Plaintiff – respondent filed suit against defendant – petitioner for possession of the suit land alleging that the plaintiff is owner of the suit land. C. R. No. 1058 of 2010 2 The defendant's stand in the written statement is that the suit land stood acquired by defendant – State of Punjab. Defendant moved application for additional evidence alleging that the record pertaining to acquisition of the suit land was earlier not traceable at appropriate stage, when the defendant led its evidence, but the said record has now been traced and is, therefore, required to be produced by additional evidence. The trial court has dismissed the application of defendant – petitioner for additional evidence observing that the proposed additional evidence was already in the knowledge of the defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the record pertaining to the acquisition of the suit land was not earlier traceable, but has now been traced in the office of concerned Collector and it is essential to produce the said record in evidence. The contention has been opposed by learned counsel for the plaintiff – respondent by submitting that the proposed additional evidence was already in the knowledge of the defendant. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The proposed additional evidence inter alia consists of notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and C. R. No. 1058 of 2010 3 objections filed against the proposed acquisition and Award of the Land Acquisition Collector for acquisition of the land and payment of compensation. The said record is not likely to be fabricated. For defendant's negligence in not tracing and producing the said record at appropriate stage, defendant may be burdened with cost, but the aforesaid relevant documentary evidence should not be shut out in the interest of justice. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the trial court is set aside. Accordingly, application moved by defendant – petitioner for additional evidence is allowed and defendant – petitioner is permitted to produce the proposed additional evidence, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost precedent. May 20, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE