Civil Revision No.1583 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1583 of 2011 Date of Decision:17.08.2011 Gurjant Singh .....Petitioner Versus Harbans Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Bhinder, Advocate for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar ,J. (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are, that Gurjant Singh s/o Nachattar Singh petitioner-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”), filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1991 passed by the Senior Sub Judge in Civil Suit, bearing No.728 dated 12.8.1991 and mutation No.11045 sanctioned, in pursuance thereof, in respect of ancestral and coparcenary property of the joint Hindu family, situated in village Sheikhu, Distt.Bathinda, are illegal, null, void, inoperative, against the principles of natural justice and not binding on his (plaintiff) rights, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Harbans Singh and others respondent-defendants (for short “the defendants”) from alienating the suit land in any manner. 2. When the case was fixed for arguments, the plaintiff filed an application for recalling Harbans Singh DW, which was dismissed on 19.1.2011. He again moved an application (Annexure P1) for recalling PW Surinder Singh Kanungo alongwith original record of excerpt. 3. The defendants refuted the prayer of the plaintiff, filed the reply and Civil Revision No.1583 of 2011 -2- prayed for dismissal of the application (Annexure P1). 4. The trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned order dated 15.2.2011 (Annexure P2). 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Court, the petitioner- plaintiff filed the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this respect. 7. Ex-facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the re- summoning of PW2 Surinder Singh Kanungo to prove the ancestral nature of property is essential, so, the trial court committed a legal mistake in dismissing the application of the plaintiff, sans merit. 8. Having completed all the codal formalities, the parties concluded their evidence. As soon as the case was fixed for arguments, then the plaintiff moved an application for recalling Harbans Singh DW, which was dismissed on 19.1.2011. Not only that, he again moved the present application for re- summoning and recalling PW2 Surinder Singh Kanungo alongwith revenue record. 9. It is not a matter of dispute that plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1991 on the ground that the property was joint Hindu coparcenary property. That means, it was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff from the very beginning that he has to prove the ancestral nature of property by producing his cogent evidence in this context. To me, the trial Court has rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiff, vide impugned order (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is as under:- “Onus to prove that suit property was ancestral in the hands of defendant No.2 was upon plaintiff, who had challenged the decree suffered in the year 1991 by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. Sufficient number of opportunities had already been availed by plaintiff Civil Revision No.1583 of 2011 -3- but plaintiff failed to lead the proposed evidence. So when the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, I do not find any sufficient reason to allow this application of plaintiff especially, when the evidence sought to be led was within the knowledge of plaintiff and his witness. So I do not find any sufficient reason to allow this application and same stands dismissed. To come up on 23.2.2011 for rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments.” 10. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application (Annexure P1) of the plaintiff, by means of impugned order (Annexure P2). Such impugned order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, therefore, the impugned order is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. 17.08.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE