C.R. No. 3695 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3695 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 8, 2009 Sohan Lal and others …..Petitioners Vs. Ajay Kumar and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated June 9, 2009, the application for amendment of written statement to incorporate the plea that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time has been dismissed safeguarding the interests of the defendants that the legal point whether the suit is barred by time can still be looked into by the civil Court as such no interference is required in that aspect. But counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order the C.R. No. 3695 of 2009 [2] application for production of additional evidence which is the revenue record including Khasra Girdawaries from the year 1972-73 till the year 2006-2007 has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner- defendants had failed to produce the documents which were already in their notice and knowledge and non-production of the said documents at appropriate time amounts to negligence. The Court has relied upon the deletion of provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC to fortify its order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the certified copies of the revenue record are per se admissible as per the provisions of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and that these documents cannot be fabricated. Besides this, the said documents are necessary for the just decision of the case. Counsel has relied upon Vijay Kumar and others Vs. State Bank of India, 2006 (2) RCR 173 to contend that the amended provisions of CPC are not applicable to the suits which were filed prior to the amendment i.e. July 11, 2002. The impugned order has been passed in a suit which was instituted on December 19, 2000. Prima facie it is apparent that provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC will not be deemed to have been repealed for the purpose of suit out of which the present revision petition has been filed. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order dated June 9, 2009 is set aside to the extent that it has disallowed the certified copies of the revenue record to be produced in evidence and a direction is issued to the trial Court to enable the defendant- petitioners to produce the documents on record in accordance with law without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff to place on record any rebuttal evidence. C.R. No. 3695 of 2009 [3] Disposed of in limine. July 8, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE