C.R No.8359 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.8359 of 2010 Date of order: 18.1.2011 Mohan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Buta Singh and others ...Respondents CORaj: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J By way of filing the instant petition, plaintiff-petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala whereby an application of the petitioner for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit No.175 of 11.7.2005 (P.1) for separate possession of 1/6th share by way of partition by metes and bounds of the house as well as consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from raising any sort of construction over the property in dispute as described in the head note of the plaint. Defendant-respondent No.1 Buta singh filed written statement C.R No.8359 of 2010 #2# dated 9.1.2006 (P.2) controverting the averments made in the plaint. Defendant-respondent Nos.2,3 & 5 filed separate replies dated 20.2.2006 (P.3). From the pleading of parties, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. During the pendency of the civil suit, plaintiff-petitioner filed an application (P.5) for leading additional evidence by seeking permission to prove the compromise dated 27.7.2000 and 31.10.2000 with respect to the property in dispute executed by defendant-respondent No.1. Upon notice, reply to the application was filed by defendant-respondent No.1 and after hearing both the parties, the application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 15.11.2010 and in these circumstances, present petition has been filed. It is argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that certified copies of both the compromise dated 27.7.2000 and 31.10.2000 were placed on record. The Plaintiff-petitioner is an NRI and there is already a history of previous litigation regarding the property in dispute as on earlier occasions also, one civil suit No.284 of 26.9.1998 was filed by defendant No.1 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn and in that civil suit, both the above mentioned compromise were produced in evidence and as such this documents go to the root of the case. It is further argued that the petitioner was not having the knowledge of the compromise and he came to know only when the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2002 (Ex.D.10 and D.11) were placed on record by the defendants. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book carefully. C.R No.8359 of 2010 #3# It is not in dispute that issues in this case have already been framed and the case is fixed for arguments after completion of evidence of both the parties. On earlier occasions also, the plaintiff was denied to produce the alleged compromise deeds by filing affidavit of one Gulzar Singh in rebuttal by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 8.2.2010 and against that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil Revision No.1288 of 2010 but the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2010 (P.4) on the ground that the plaintiff cannot prove the alleged two agreements dated 26.7.2000 and 31.10.2000 by leading evidence in rebuttal as the same were in his knowledge. Aforesaid compromises were neither pleaded nor produced by the plaintiff-petitioner in his affirmative despite the fact that the plaintiff- petitioner was having the knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2002 (Ex.D.10 & D.11) as he himself has mentioned this fact in paragraph No.4 of his plaint and, therefore, the assertion of the plaintiff- petitioner that the suit was dismissed as withdrawn is factually incorrect rather an appeal No.214 dated 6.8.2002 was also filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2002 but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide its judgment and decree dated 26.7.2004 and an RSA thereagainst is still pending in this Court as admitted by the petitioner himself in paragraph 4 of the plaint. The case is undoubtedly fixed for arguments. The contention of the plaintiff-petitioner that he was not having the knowledge about the alleged compromise is not believable rather he was very much aware of the same but he did not exercise due diligence for not producing the documents on record. The submission of the plaintiff-petitioner that he was not having the knowledge of these C.R No.8359 of 2010 #4# documents has rightly been declined by the learned trial Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. January 18, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE