Civil Revision No. 4454 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4454 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.9.2009 Jagdish ......petitioner Versus Bijender Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Vide this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Gohana. The plaintiff-respondent Bijender Kumar filed a suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application for permission to place the original documents Civil Revision No. 4454 of 2009 (O&M) 2 on record i.e. agreement to sell dated 6.6.2004, agreement dated 21.5.2000, report dated 2.5.2006, receipt dated 12.12.2004, certificate dated 10.10.2007, voter list and death certificate of the father of the plaintiff and also for granting permission to file additional affidavit. Vide the impugned order the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned trial Court, while dismissing the application, has observed that the original of the agreement now sought to be proved on record was already available on the file and hence, there could not be two originals of the same agreement. So far as the other documents were concerned, learned trial Court has observed that the documents were already in the knowledge and possession of the defendant but the defendant had failed to produce on record the receipt. However, the photostat of the documents are already on record and now by way of the application, the petitioner only wants to prove the originals of the said photostat documents on record. Learned trial Court erred in holding that the original of the agreement were already on record. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that coloured photostat copies of the original agreement were on record. The case is still fixed for defence evidence. In these circumstances, the ends of justice require that the petitioner is allowed to prove the original of the documents on record. Moreover, the lis between the parties would be decided on Civil Revision No. 4454 of 2009 (O&M) 3 merits. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for seeking permission to place on record the original documents and for granting permission to file additional affidavit on record is allowed subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as costs. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed with the case further in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE September 14, 2009 anita