C.R.No.6073 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6073 of 2011(O&M) Date of Order: 13.10.2011 Anil Kumar Nagpal and another .....Petitioners Vs. Amarjit Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) C.M.No.24742-CII of 2011 Application is allowed. Written statement dated 6.11.2008 is taken on record. C.R.No.6073 of 2011 Defendant Nos.2 & 3/petitioners in the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, have assailed the order dated 15.9.2011 (P.5) passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Baba Bakala whereby their application under Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence in the shape of certified copies of plaint dated 9.4.2007 and judgment dated 18.3.2008 has been dismissed. It is submitted that the plaintiff Amarjit Singh in the present suit has challenged the sale deed dated 23.7.2001 executed by his wife Jagir Kaur/defendant No.1 in favour of the present petitioners/defendant Nos.2 & 3, namely, Anil Kumar Nagpal and Pinky Nagpal primarily on the ground C.R.No.6073 of 2011 #2# that defendant No.1 was not the owner of the property. Petitioners- defendants have taken up the plea that they have purchased the property after paying total consideration and verifying the title of defendant No.1 from the record duly maintained by the competent authority. It is apparent from the record that the suit filed on 4.12.2004 is at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, when the application was preferred by the defendants for leading of additional evidence. Learned counsel submits that defendant No.1-Jagir Kaur had filed another suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioner wherein she admitted that the sale deed had been executed, however, possession was not handed over as the entire sale consideration was not paid. He further submits that the suit was dismissed on 18.3.2008 for want of any evidence on behalf of Jagir Kaur-plaintiff therein. He submits that in the present suit, the plea taken by the defendant No.1 is that the petitioners/co defendants had been inducted as tenant in the property and the alleged sale deed dated 23.7.2001 is a forged and fabricated document. It is thus contended that copies of the plaint dated 9.4.2007 and the judgment dated 18.3.2008 are just and necessary for proper and effective decision of the present case. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perusing the paper book, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners-defendant Nos.2 & 3. It is not in dispute that the fact with regard to the plaint dated 9.4.2007 and the judgment dated 18.3.2008 is not mentioned in any of the pleadings. It is further not in dispute that before closing of the evidence of the defendants on 3.5.2011, these documents were neither pleaded in the C.R.No.6073 of 2011 #3# written statement nor put to the plaintiff in his cross examination nor examination in chief of the witnesses of defendants. It is further apparent from the nature of the suit that the documents sought to be brought on record are not in any way relevant or appropriate for the decision of the suit making out a case for permitting them to be led as additional evidence. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no perversity or illegality can be found with the impugned order dated 15.9.2011 (P.5) passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Baba Bakala warranting interference by this Court. Dismissed. October 13, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE