IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 17.11.2010 C.R.No.7490 of 2010 (O&M) Kishan Chand ...Petitioner Versus Piara Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. S.P.Soi, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned trial Court on 20.10.2010, whereby the defendants have been permitted to produce jamabandies from the years 1962 to 2003, subject to payment of Rs.4000/- as costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that objection regarding incomplete jamabandies has been taken by the plaintiff during the course of evidence, as the defendants have been failed to produce complete jamabandies and, therefore, the defendants cannot be permitted to tender jamabandies, so as to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. Such evidence could have been produced by the defendants, if they had acted with due diligence. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The jamabandies are per se admissible in evidence. Even if, the defendants have not produced the jamabandies earlier, such documents will be helpful to the learned trial Court to decide the suit on merits. The learned trial Court has found that the production of jamabandies shall not only result in removing ambiguity on record, but shall C.R.No.7490 of 2010 (O&M) also facilitate the Court to reach a right conclusion and that no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff, as he would have opportunity to rebut the same. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 17.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2