Civil Revision No. 1759 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1759 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Om Parkash .. Petitioner v. Puran Chand and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. L. Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 15.12.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the evidence of the petitioner- defendant was closed and order dated 1.2.2010, whereby the application filed by him for leading additional evidence, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and mandatory injunction against the petitioner-defendant with the allegation that the petitioner had encroached upon the joint chowk and also the passage. The wall belonging to respondent No. 1-plaintiff was also demolished by the petitioner, for restoration of which a direction was sought. The petitioner denied the allegations of respondent No. 1-plaintiff stating that correct site plan has not been produced on record and no encroachment was made by the petitioner. Both the parties have already led their evidence. It is after closure of the evidence of the petitioner-defendant that application was filed for permission to lead additional evidence to produce on record a site plan approved by Municipal Committee for construction raised by the petitioner. The same having been dismissed, the petitioner-defendant is before this court. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition be considered only qua order dated 1.2.2010, rejecting application seeking permission to lead additional evidence. In support of Civil Revision No. 1759 of 2010 [2] the petition, he submitted that the primary dispute in the present case is as to whether the petitioner-defendant has encroached upon any portion of the common passage or joint chowk, for which respondent No. 1-plaintiff had produced a site plan on record. In fact, the construction was raised by the petitioner after getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. As copy thereof was not in possession of the petitioner, he could not produce the same on record while closing his evidence. He only seeks liberty to produce the same on record, as it is the most relevant evidence to establish the fact as to whether the petitioner has encroached any portion of land or not. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff submitted that evidence of the petitioner was closed on the statement of his counsel. Immediately thereafter application was filed without having any justifiable reason for the same. Because of lapse of the petitioner or his counsel, he cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna in the evidence already led on record and further the object is merely to delay the disposal of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, considering the kind of evidence which the petitioner is seeking to produce on record and also the fact that there cannot be any chance of its fabrication or tampering and that endeavour of the court is always to decide the lis between the parties on merits, where substantial justice is always kept at a higher pedestal than technicalities, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to produce on record the site plan, as sanctioned by the Municipal Committee, a copy whereof has been placed on record with the petition as Annexure-P6, by way of additional evidence. However, considering the fact that in the process, the suit has been delayed, the petitioner certainly deserves to be burdened with cost, which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner shall pay cost to respondent No. 1 before the court below on the next date of hearing, before he is permitted to lead additional evidence. In case, the cost is not paid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The present petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.5.2010 mk