IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 05, 2008 Smt. Phoolwati .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Angoori Devi .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Plaintiff has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by trial Court, rejecting her application for leading additional evidence. In her suit the plaintiff had claimed entitlement to the arrears of pension of deceased Shankar Nath along with interest. She pleaded that she was widow of Shankar Nath. During the trial of the suit, she sought to lead additional evidence so as to produce and prove some important material documents, like ration-card, identity card and the voters-list, reflecting her to be the wife of deceased-Shankar Nath, on the ground that these documents were not available and traceable to her when she had filed the suit and had led evidence. The application filed by the petitioner was Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2008 -2- opposed by the defendant-respondent on the ground that the documents in question were available and traceable to the plaintiff as she was very much in know of the same. Therefore, she could not be allowed to fill up the gaps by leading additional evidence, when she had already closed her evidence without any reservation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner were not available as they could not be traced out despite best of her efforts. Further, that the documents in question go to the root of the case to establish the relationship of the plaintiff-petitioner with deceased-Shankar Nath. In case, the petitioner is not allowed to produce these documents, she would be prejudiced and great injustice done to her. Learned counsel for the respondent while opposing the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that the application had been filed by the plaintiff only to delay the trial of the case. These documents were available to the petitioner and, therefore, she could not be allowed to produce them in evidence by way of additional evidence and, that too, when she had already closed her evidence without any reservation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The dispute between the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant- Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2008 -3- respondent is in respect of the pensionary benefits of deceased-Shankar Nath. The petitioner claims to be the widow of Shankar Nath. The respondent has been already described in the pension papers of deceased- Shankar Nath to be his wife. There is no denial of the fact that till date the defendant-respondent is in receipt of the pensionary benefits of deceased- Shankar Nath. It cannot be, thus, said that the plaintiff-petitioner is deriving any benefit by delaying the trial of the case. The petitioner has claimed that the documents sought to be brought on record by way of additional evidence were neither available nor could be traced out by her inspite of her best efforts. In the absence of any material on the record to show that these documents were available/traceable to the petitioner, it has to be held that the petitioner was neither in possession of those documents nor she could trace them out inspite of her best efforts. The documents in question go to the root of the case. They would be of assistance to the trial Court in determining the real controversy between the parties. The plaintiff will try to substantiate her claim of being the widow of Shankar Nath. It cannot be said that such like documents can be created/fabricated. They, being official documents, their authenticity could be proved by the official to be examined for producing them in evidence. Mere fact that the petitioner did not reserve her right to prove the documents in question in rebuttal evidence, while closing her evidence, Civil Revision No. 2142 of 2008 -4- was not sufficient to disallow her to produce them by way of additional evidence. The petitioner has already showed that inspite of due diligence, she could not know of these documents or trace them at an earlier stage when she led evidence in support of her case. In view of the above, the revision is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to lead additional evidence to produce and prove ration-card, identity card and voters-list, as claimed by her in her application dated 7.2.2008. It is, however, made clear that once the plaintiff leads additional evidence in respect of the aforementioned documents, the defendant-respondent shall also be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of the documents in question. ( T.P.S. MANN ) November 05, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO