C.R. No.6490 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.R. No.6490 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:10.11.2010 Darshan Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. Smt. Savinder Kaur .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned order whereby their prayer to lead additional evidence has been rejected. As per the averments made in this petition and the other documents placed on record, the petitioners by way of additional evidence wanted to produce on record original sale deed No.882 dated 20.5.1987. To prove the fact that the defendants- petitioners had purchased land measuring 20 kanals comprised in Khasra Nos.37/4(8-0), 5(8-0) and 6(4-0) and to demonstrate the fact that certified copy of the aforesaid sale deed as produced by the plaintiff- respondent (Ex.P4) wherein the land sold by Sawinder Kaur has been shown to be comprised in Khasra No.38/4 (8-0), 5 (8-0) 6 (4-0) is incorrect and does not show the correct picture. The prayer of the petitioners was rejected vide impugned order C.R. No.6490 of 2009 (O&M) -2- observing that the evidence of the parties had already been closed since long and the original sale deed dated 20.5.1987 which is sought to be placed on record has already been proved by way of placing on record the certified copy as Ex.P4. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the preliminary stage, has contended before this Court that there was a difference in the actual khasra number in the certified copy of the sale deed produced by the plaintiff- respondent as Ex.P4 and in the original registered sale deed. It was claimed that khasra No.38 has been wrongly mentioned in the certified copy (Ex.P4) whereas correct khasra No.37 is shown in original sale deed which has already been produced on record of the trial Court vide order dated 4.3.2009 subject to further orders of this Court. Noticing the aforesaid facts, vide order dated 9.11.2009, this Court had issued notice of motion to the respondent and had further observed that if in case the original sale deed is brought to the notice of the trial Court and if the trial Court finds that the contents of the original sale deed are different from the certified copy Ex.P4 as produced on the record, it will be open to the trial Court to take on record the original copy of the sale deed dated 20.5.1987 by permitting the defendants to tender the original documents. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent could not dispute the fact that there is a difference in the khasra numbers as mentioned in the certified copy Ex.P4 as produced on record and the original sale deed sought to be produced on record by the petitioners. Since this Court vide order dated 9.11.2009 has already C.R. No.6490 of 2009 (O&M) -3- observed that if the trial Court finds that the contents of the original sale deed are different from the certified copy Ex.P4, as produced on the record, it will be open to the trial Court to take on record the original copy of the sale deed. Admittedly, the original sale deed has already been placed on record of trial Court. Moreover, it is not the case of the plaintiff- respondent that she is also the owner of khasra No.38/4 (8-0) 5 (8-0) and 6(4-0). The original sale deed will help the Court to reach to adjudicate the case effectively. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside and petitioner is allowed to lead additional evidence in respect of original sale deed No.882 dated 20.5.1987, which has already been produced on record. Let the parties appear before the trial Court on the date fixed. Allowed. November 10, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE