Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2011 Date of decision. 09.12.2011 Charan Kaur and others .... Petitioners Versus Karnail Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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: Mr. S.R. Soi, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Charan Kaur and others have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, District Jalandhar whereby the application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiffs-respondents has been allowed. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for possession in respect of land measuring 27 kanals 5 marlas situated in the area of village Ghuduwal, Tehsil Shahkot. In the said suit, after the evidence of the parties was over and the suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, the plaintiffs-respondents filed an application under section 151 CPC for Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2011 --2-- permission to lead additional evidence. By way of additional evidence, the plaintiffs wanted to tender certified copies of some documents i.e. order dated 13.06.2011, statement dated 13.06.2001 and certified copy of mutation sanctioned on 26.09.2011. It is claimed that the documents are very material and necessary for proper adjudication of the case. The defendants opposed the application claiming the same to be not maintainable because the plaintiffs themselves closed their evidence. It is further claimed that the application has been filed at a very belated stage and the same deserves dismissal. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar allowed the application, vide the impugned order. I have heard Mr.S.P. Soi, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case was at the final stage when this application was made and has been allowed by learned trial court without taking into the account the fact that this will reopen the case and would further delay the disposal of the suit. He has submitted that the application was not maintainable when the case had already been fixed for arguments. He has further submitted that on account of delay in bringing this application also, the application deserves dismissal. The first important circumstance in this case is that the documents on the record i.e. copy of order dated 13.6.2011 and a copy of Civil Revision No. 7613 of 2011 --3-- the statement of the same date are already there on the record of the suit and certified copy of mutation sanctioned on 26.09.2011 is a copy of public record. Genuineness of these documents cannot be claimed doubtful. The documents which are already on record as well as the copy of mutation being public record would not take the defendants by surprise. It also cannot be said that leading additional evidence regarding these documents would in any way delay the disposal of the suit. Technically speaking the objections regarding delay in disposal of the suit would be available to the plaintiffs where the defendants make such a prayer. When the plaintiffs themselves seek that relief, the defendants cannot be heard saying that the application has been filed to delay the proceedings of the suit. It is true that the plaintiffs cannot claim that they did not know about this evidence when they were leading their evidence and that they can be said to be negligent for not leading this evidence at the time they were leading their evidence, yet the documents appear to be relevant and material for effective decision of the suit. In these circumstances, learned trial court seems completely justified in allowing the application for additional evidence. For these reasons, I do not find learned trial court to have committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 09.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh