IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4202 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 24.04.2008 Gurmel Singh and another ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Advocate vs. Satish Kumar and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for respondents Nos.9 to 18 *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr.Division), Karnal, whereby an application for additional evidence moved by the petitioner-defendants has been dismissed. The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession. In that suit, the petitioner-defendants wanted to lead some additional evidence comprising copies of revenue record, namely, jamabandis and mutation. It appears that their application having been declined, they approached this Court by way of Civil Revision No.2876 of 2004 in which they were permitted to place on record the copies of the revenue record. The petitioners, however, failed to avail the said opportunity and after a long gap they moved an application to produce those documents as an C.R. No.4202 of 2006 -2- additional evidence which has since been declined by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order. Though in the absence of any cogent explanation as to why the subject documents could not be produced earlier despite an opportunity granted by this Court to the petitioners the strict view taken by the learned trial Court may not warrant any interference, however, the fact remains that the petitioner-defendants want to produce copies of the revenue record, namely, jamabandis and mutation which is per se admissible. The production of those documents, thus, is not likely to cause any inordinate delay in adjudication of the suit. That apart, having regard to the very nature of the suit, namely, declaration and consequential relief of possession, the copies of the revenue record may have some bearing on the merits of the suit and might facilitate the learned trial Court to arrive at a just conclusion. As far as the negligence and/or delay on the part of the petitioners is concerned, the respondents can be suitably compensated with costs. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 19.7.2006 is set aside and it is directed that only one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners to place on record the certified copies of the jamabandi/mutation, however, subject to their payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-plaintiffs. It is made clear that only one opportunity shall be granted and in case the petitioners fail to avail the same, the learned trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Dasti. April 24, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE