C.R. No.1938 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1938 of 2008 Date of Decision : 11.08.2009 Milkhi Ram .....Petitioner versus Kanwan Bhan and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.B.P.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Nagpal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 8.3.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Samana, declining his application for additional evidence. The petitioner has filed a declaratory suit challenging certain sale deeds executed by one or the other defendants and has claimed his own title qua the suit land on the basis of a sale deed dated 12.9.1960. The respondent-defendants have come up with the plea that the vendor from whom the father of the petitioner-plaintiff is claimed to have derived the title, himself had no valid title as the allotment made in favour C.R. No.1938 of 2008 2 of that vendor by the Rehabilitation Department had already been cancelled. The petitioner-plaintiff, however, led no evidence to show that cancellation of the allotment, relied upon by the defendant-respondents, did not pertain to the suit land which his father had purchased vide sale deed dated 12.9.1960. It is only after both the parties had concluded their evidence that the petitioner-plaintiff moved the present application to lead the additional evidence comprising the Patwari alongwith records of the Rehabilitation/Consolidation Department. The said application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 8.3.2008. There can indeed be no exception that additional evidence can be allowed to be led only if a party, despite exercising due diligence, could not produce the same for the reason that it was not within its knowledge. In the case in hand, the petitioner-plaintiff knew about cancellation of the allotment, yet he failed to produce the evidence related thereto. However, considering the fact that the entire controversy revolves around the alleged cancellation of allotment of the vendor from whom the father of the petitioner-plaintiff had purchased the suit land, it would be in the interest of justice and fair play if the petitioner is given one chance to produce such evidence, though on payment of heavy costs. For the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 8.3.2008 is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to give only one opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to produce the additional evidence by summoning the Patwari or any other official of the Rehabilitation/Consolidation Department through the court process by way of dasti notice, alongwith the records. The sole opportunity shall be C.R. No.1938 of 2008 3 granted to the plaintiff-petitioner subject to the payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-defendants. The defendants shall also be entitled for one opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the petitioner-plaintiff, thereafter. Dasti. 11-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE