RSA No.1481 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1481 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.8.2009 Nahar Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Tara Singh .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Shri Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate, for Caveator. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that he is in exclusive possession of 147 bighas 15 biswas of the land, was decreed. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that he is co-owner in the land measuring 147 bighas 15 biswas and is in exclusive possession of the same, whereas the defendants are threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, forcibly. In support of his possession, the plaintiff has relied upon Roznamcha Exhibit P.1, Girdawari for the years 1995-2000 Exhibit P.2, Jamabandi for the years 1998-99 Exhibit P.3, RSA No.1481 of 2009 (2) Khasra Girdawari for the years 1999-02 Exhibit P.4. The stand of the defendants in written statement was that the revenue authorities have inspected the spot and in inspection, have ordered the correction of Khasra Girdawari, whereby the defendants are found to be in possession of the suit property. The said contention has been considered by the Courts below and did not find favour with them for the reason that the spot inspection and order of correction of Khasra Girdawari were done by the revenue authorities after the filing of the present suit. It was held that any such proceedings during the pendency of the civil suit, are not relevant to determine the possession of the plaintiff on the date of the filing of the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the entry in the jamabandi recording plaintiff to be in exclusive possession for the year 1998-99 is a stray entry, therefore, the finding that the plaintiff is in possession, cannot be sustained. It is also contended that the presumption of correctness about the entries of the Jamabandi stand rebutted by the evidence of the defendants, which shows the defendants to be in possession. However, learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any revenue record regarding appellant to be in possession of the suit land prior to the filing of the suit. In the absence of any documentary evidence of possession of the defendants prior to the filing of the suit, the finding of possession recorded by the revenue officials after the filing of the suit cannot be relied upon to non-suit the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that various applications for additional evidence were filed before the learned trial Court, but except one, the remaining applications have not been RSA No.1481 of 2009 (3) decided. The appellant has sought to produce the revenue record by way of additional evidence and that too for the period after the filing of the suit. Since the controversy involved in the suit has to be decided on the date of filing of the suit, any subsequent revenue record is not relevant to decide the question of possession on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, even if such applications are allowed, the same would not materially change the position. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 6.8.2009 ds