Civil Revision No. 2558 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2558 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.5.2011 *** Naranjan Singh & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Sukhwant Kaur & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The application of the petitioners for return of original documents i.e. Will dated 1.4.2003 and sale deed dated 30.5.1997, which they produced during the trial and exhibited as Ex.D6 and Ex.D3 respectively, has been dismissed by the Court below by dint of order dated 4.12.2010, leading to the institution of the present civil revision. Heard. It is evident from the records that the petitioners were the defendants in the suit filed by the respondents claiming ownership of the land. The said suit was dismissed on 25.7.2009 and the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the first appellate Court on 18.11.2009. The regular second appeal preferred by the plaintiff is also stated to have been dismissed by this Court and no appeal whatsoever is pending. The aforesaid documents were produced by the petitioners-defendants in their evidence. In this view of the matter, the approach adopted by the learned trial Court in not returning the original Civil Revision No. 2558 of 2010 2 documents to the petitioners is against the spirit of Order XIII Rule 9 CPC, which prescribes the mode in which the documents produced during the trial, could be returned. The Court could have return the same to the petitioners against proper receipt and ordered them for placing the certified copies of the same on record, besides a direction to the petitioners to produce the original documents as and when required, in case of any necessity. For the reasons above, the instant petition is allowed and the Court below is directed to return the original documents, aforesaid, on the conditions which satisfy the above provisions of law. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 25, 2011 Jiten