Civil Revision No. 5247 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5247 of 2006 Date of Decision: August 11, 2009 Shashi Jain and another ......... Petitioners versus Prabhu Dayal and others .......... Respondents Present:- Ms. Shashi Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiffs are in revision against the order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the learned trial Court whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs for exhibiting the documents, marked A and B, was dismissed. A preliminary decree for partition of joint property was earlier granted by the learned trial Court somewhere in the year 1991. In proceedings for preparation of final decree, learned trial Court appointed Shri Hawa Singh Kadyan as a Local Commissioner. Shri Hawa Singh Kadyan has submitted his report dated 3.1.1987 and also a site map. On the basis of such report and site map, learned Court has passed a final decree on 30.03.1987. The order reads as under:- “Statement of counsel for the J.D. recorded wherein he stated that he has no objection to the proposed partition. No objection against the report of L.C. has been filed by either of the parties. Hence final decree in terms of report of L.C. dated 3.1.1987 Civil Revision No. 5247 of 2006 [2] which shall form part of the decree sheet is hereby ordered to be passed under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC. Final decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned”. The petitioners, in a subsequent suit for possession, tendered copy of the decree aforesaid. Subsequently, an application was filed for exhibiting the report of the Local Commissioner and map dated 3.1.1987 in view of the fact that such documents are part of the decree which have been already produced in evidence and exhibited as Exhibit P-6. The said report and the site plan have not been admitted into evidence on the ground that the question of admissibility of these documents will be decided at final stage of arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and others, AIR 2003 SC 4548 to contend that the objection regarding mode of proof a document should be decided at the initial stage itself so as to permit the party producing the document to cure the curable defect. It is further contended that, in fact, report of the Local Commissioner and the site plan are part of the decree dated 30.03.1987 and, therefore, they are admissible in evidence per se. A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court would show that, in fact, the decree dated 30.03.1987 has been granted in terms of report of the Local Commissioner dated 3.1.1987. Thus, the report of the Local Commissioner is a part of the decree dated 30.03.1987 and was required to be admitted in evidence. The site plan is also part of the report of the Local Commissioner, therefore, by necessary implication, is a part of the decree dated 30.03.1987. Learned trial Court has gravely erred in law in not exhibiting the document and deferring the decision on the question of Civil Revision No. 5247 of 2006 [3] exhibition of the documents at the latter stage. Such procedure is prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs as at that time, if the objection is to be upheld that will further delay the proceedings. In view of the above, the report of the Local Commissioner and map dated 3.1.1987 are ordered to be admitted in evidence. The present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The report of the Local Commissioner and the site plan dated 3.1.1987 are ordered to be exhibited. August 11, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE