cr no.5903 of 2008.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5903 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 18.11.2009 **** Jasbir Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Kashmir Kaur & others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. Indu Bali, Advocate for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.10.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala dismissing the petitioner-plaintiff’s application to lead additional evidence. (2). In a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell dated 30.10.2003, the petitioner-plaintiff wanted to produce a certified copy of another sale deed dated 04.11.2003 as additional evidence, but his application has been dismissed by the trial Court after observing that there are no averments regarding such sale deed in the pleadings. (3). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard at some cr no.5903 of 2008.doc - 2 - length. It is pointed out by counsel for the respondent-defendant that the sale deed in question has no bearing on the merits of the controversy. He also argued that the application for additional evidence has been moved belatedly. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the question as to whether or not the sale deed dated 04.11.2003 has any bearing on the merits of the suit, can be gone into by the trial Court only after the sale deed is brought on record. Leaving that objection of the respondent-defendant open, to be gone into by the trial Court at an appropriate stage, the petitioner-plaintiff can be permitted to produce the certified copy of the sale dated 04.11.2003 on record, as the same would be per se admissible. In other words, no oral evidence would be required to be led by the petitioner-plaintiff and thus, there is no likelihood of any further delay in adjudication of the suit. Since the sale deed in question appears to have been executed a few days before the institution of the suit, it is quite possible that the same might not be in the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff and in relation thereto no specific averments could be made in the plaint. As regards the delay, the respondent-defendants can be suitably compensated with costs. cr no.5903 of 2008.doc - 3 - (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order 04.10.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala is hereby set aside and the petitioner is permitted to place on record, the certified copy of the sale deed dated 04.11.2003, without leading any other oral evidence. The relevancy of the said sale deed, in the context of the controversy in the present suit, would be gone into by the trial Court at an appropriate stage. The respondent-defendants shall be entitled to the costs of Rs.3000/- to be paid by the petitioner at the time of tendering the Sale-Deed in question in evidence. (6). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 18.11.2009 vishal shonkar