Civil Revision No.4462 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4462 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 10, 2007 Irfan ...........Petitioner Versus Ram Bhool and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal,Advocate,for the petitioner. -- Sabina, J. (oral) Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession. Plaintiff filed an application for summoning the case file titled as Irfan versus Raja Ram decided on 4.2.2002. Vide the impugned order dated 23.3.2009, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal had dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was very necessary and in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to summon the case file. Defendants had placed on record the photocopy of the agreement Annexure P1 and contents of the same were very necessary to be brought on record because as per the said agreement, plaintiff had agreed to sell only 14 kanals of land out of 16 kanals of land owned by him. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. Now, the plaintiff as well as defendants have concluded their Civil Revision No.4462 of 2009 (O&M) 2 evidence and case is listed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It has been observed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order that the certified copies of the various documents in the said case file had already been placed on record. At this stage, the application for summoning the case filed could not be allowed as now the case was listed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. The said agreement was already in the knowledge of the plaintiff and he could have summoned the case file while leading his evidence in affirmative. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that the only photocopy of the said agreement is on record which is neither marked nor exhibited. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. The impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 10, 2009 arya