IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 315 of 2004 Date of Decision: 2.12.2010. Kashmir Singh and others ..Petitioners. Versus. Netar Singh and another ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? . No For the Petitioner (s): Ms.Salochana Kaundal, vice counsel for the petitioners. For the Respondent(s): None for the respondents. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 26.8.2004 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the defendants for placing on record certain documents i.e. copy of the consolidation order, copy of jamabandi and a copy of pedigree table. All these three documents are per se admissible in evidence and the application had been rejected only on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage when the suit was ripe for hearing. 2 2. This petition was filed in the year 2004 and it is indeed a very sad state of affairs that it has taken more than six years for this minor petition to be decided. The whole purpose of giving quick justice will be frustrated in case petitions are kept pending where proceedings in the trial court have been stayed. In this case the proceedings in the trial Court were stayed on 23.9.2004 and despite the fact that the petition was admitted on 16.11.2004, this petition was not listed for hearing till this Court specifically directed the Registry to list old cases. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of this Court who shall ensure that in future all such matters where proceedings before the trial Court or any other judicial or quasi- judicial Courts are stayed, are listed at the earliest possible. 3. As far as the present case is concerned, all the documents sought to be placed on record are per se admissible in evidence. The learned trial Court had not found that these documents are not relevant for the decision of the case. Therefore, this was a case where the plaintiffs 3 could have been compensated by payment of costs. 4. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed, the order of the learned trial Court is set-aside and the documents sought to be placed on record are permitted to be placed on record and exhibited since they are per se admissible in evidence. The plaintiffs shall be given an opportunity to file documents to rebut these documents. Thereafter, the matter being ripe for hearing shall be heard. 5. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 28th December, 2010 on which date the learned trial Court shall issue notice to the respondents herein and in view of the fact that the suit was initially filed in the year 1998, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the same latest by 31st March, 2011. No costs. December 2, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV