IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1397 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.3.2009 Ram Lal ....Petitioner Versus Kharaiti Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated February 19, 2009, passed by the learned Court below whereby the respondent/plaintiff has been permitted to prove documents Ex.P4 and P5 i.e. plaint and written statement filed in the earlier litigation between the parties by way of additional evidence to substantiate the claim made in the plaint on the issue of resjudicata. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on October 10, 2008, the respondents/plaintiffs as well as counsel had tendered the aforesaid two documents in their evidence along with other documents and after accepting the same to be true copies on comparison with the originals on record, the evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments. An application was filed seeking permission of the Court to prove the aforesaid documents Ex.P4 and P5 by way of additional evidence by producing the counsel or his son who had signed the plaint and one of the defendant therein who had filed the written statement. The submission is that such an application could not have been allowed at belated stage once the respondents/plaintiffs had closed the evidence by producing these documents on record and also comparing the same with the original which were summoned, keeping in view the fact that the suit was filed way back in the year 1994 but was being unnecessarily delayed by the respondents/plaintiffs. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any -2- merit in the submission made. No doubt the documents were produced on record and were compared also with the originals summoned from the Court file as has been noticed in the statement of Kharaiti Lal and Subhash Chander recorded on October 10, 2008. As it is pleadings in the form of plaint and written statement, application was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for proving the same by producing son or clerk of the Advocate Mr. T.R. Gupta, who had signed the plaint and also producing one Vimal Kumar, who had signed the written statement as defendant therein. Though there is a lapse on part of the respondents/plaintiffs in not producing these witnesses at the relevant time when the documents were produced. However, the same itself cannot be said to be sufficient not to allow the respondents/plaintiffs to prove the signatures of the persons on the aforesaid two documents, for the reason that the documents have come from the custody of the Court itself. These are not the documents which can be said to be created afterwards. Further the Court had granted permission to the respondents/plaintiffs vide order dated February 19, 2009, for producing the documents, however, the same could not be done on the date was given as 24.2.2009 for producing of persons to prove the documents. On that date the matter was adjourned to March 9, 2009 and thereafter to today. On one occasion according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the evidence could not be recorded for the reasons that the Presiding Officer was not holding the Court. Meaning thereby the petitioner was not aggrieved against order immediately the same was passed. The challenge was sought to be made after the date of hearing had already lapsed. The revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 16.3.2009 JUDGE Reema