Civil Revision No. 2878 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2878 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.05.2011 *** Maya Devi .. Petitioner Vs. Uttam Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The application of the petitioner-plaintiff for summoning of sale deed bearing No. 988 dated 16.8.1988 registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Ratia and for tendering the copy of jamabandi for the year 2003- 04 in rebuttal evidence or in the alternative by way of an additional evidence, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court by dint of order dated 28.3.2011, leading to the institution of present revision petition. Heard. It is evident from the records that the plaintiff laid the foundation of her case on the basis of aforesaid sale deed No. 988 dated 16.8.1988, which, admittedly, could not be traced by her despite concerted efforts. However, her application for proving the same by way of secondary evidence was allowed. When the plaintiff herself alleges the loss of aforesaid document, then summoning the same is nothing else but an exercise in futility. So far as tendering of jamabandi for the year 2003-04 is concerned, the same is having no relevancy with the case, as rightly held by the learned trial Court. Moreover, in rebuttal the plaintiff is supposed to rebut the evidence adduced by the defendant and not otherwise. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Court below while following the ratio of law laid down in the Civil Revision No. 2878 of 2011 2 case of Chhida Ram and others Vs. Rishi Raj and another 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 672. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 02, 2011 Jiten