In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No.4686 of 2010 Decided on 10.11.2010. Vinod Kumar -- Petitioner vs. Avtar Singh and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Deepak Arora,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Vijay Lath,Advocate, for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.6.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, by which his application for producing jamabandi for the year 1998-99 by way of additional evidence, has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defendant Nos.1 to 3 are owners of the suit property which was allegedly agreed to be sold to the plaintiff on 2.7.2002 and date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 1.7.2004. However, before the said date could arrive, the plaintiff sold the suit property to the petitioner on 22.3.2004 against a valuable consideration without notice. The petitioner took the plea of a bonafide purchaser of the suit property in which it was alleged that before purchasing the property in dispute, he had seen the revenue record from which it transpired that his vendor/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of the suit property. It is further submitted that in order to prove his bonafide, the petitioner wanted to lead additional evidence by way of tendering CR No.4686 of 2010 -2- a copy of jamabandi for the year1998-99, but the Court below has illegally dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had the knowledge of the said document when he was leading his evidence, therefore, the said documentary evidence cannot be allowed to be led by way of additional evidence. He further submits that it was sheer inadvertence on his part that the said document could not be brought on record, otherwise, it is not self manufactured document and is coming from the custody of revenue department. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that though Order 18 Rule 17-A of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,'CPC') has been deleted, yet the Court had been allowing the application with the aid of Section 151 of CPC, but the petitioner has to show some due diligence exercised by him, at the time he was leading evidence, that evidence escaped his notice and could not be brought on record which is now sought to be produced. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. No doubt, the petitioner has to show due diligence but in case the document is such which goes to the root of the case and is not self created, interest of justice would be in favour of allowing the application for the purpose of assistance of the Court to reach at a just conclusion. In view thereof, I allow this revision petition while compensating the respondents with costs of ` 5,000/- 10.11.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge