Civil Revision No.5295 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5295 of 2011 Date of Decision:01.09.2011 Surinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Jasbir Kaur and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.H.S.Diwana, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Surinder Singh son of Tara Singh- petitioner-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Jasbir Kaur wiife of Surinder Singh and Tejinder Singh son of Late Jang Singh-respondent- defendants(for brevity “the defendants”) for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner and in possession of 34/219th share in the land in dispute. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application (Annexure P-1) for additional evidence, to produce his Passport and entry of withdrawal of `55,000/- by defendant No.1-Jasbir Kaur from his account, through cheque No.738 dated 27.02.1992. 3. The defendants refuted the prayer of the plaintiff, filed the reply denying the contents of the application for additional evidence and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff for additional evidence, by virtue of impugned order dated 28.05.2011(Annexure P-3). Civil Revision No.5295 of 2011 2 5. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-3) of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondent- defendants, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this respect. 8. As is evident from the record that, the main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court in dismissing the application of the plaintiff for additional evidence were that, the record of Passport and withdrawal of the amount of `55,000/- from State Bank of India, were in the knowledge of the plaintiff when he was leading evidence and he cannot be permitted to produce additional evidence at this stage. 9. Ex facie, it may be true, but taking into consideration the nature of documents, now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, to me, the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff, subject to costs. The production of Passport and withdrawal of the amount is essential to decide the real controversy between the parties and is the legal requirement of fair trial. Therefore, the trial Court has committed the material, procedural irregularity & illegality and the impugned order cannot be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. To me, if the opportunity of additional evidence, is not granted to the plaintiff, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his case. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-defendants, Civil Revision No.5295 of 2011 3 particularly when, they can be compensated with adequate costs in this manner. More so, when the case is still fixed for rebuttal evidence. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more opportunity to the plaintiff, to produce the additional evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner-plaintiff to the respondent- defendants. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the defendants. The payment of costs would be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the case. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith, for strict compliance. September 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5295 of 2011 4 C.M.No.21230-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5295 of 2011 Present: Mr.H.S.Diwana, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. September 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE