IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4782 of 2005 Date of decision:26.05.2009 Joginder Singh and others ...Petitioners versus Didar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The order assailed in revision is rejection of the plea to produce additional evidence by the defendants. By such an application, the party wanted to produce the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1968-69 and also the certified copy of mutation No.1468 regarding the land held by one Ganga Ram. The request was rejected on the ground that the documents had already been produced and marked as Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-6 with reference to jamabandi and there was no proper reason given as to why the documents could not be produced even earlier. 2. It will subvert justice if hyper-technical view is taken on issues relating to production of evidence so long as the trial was still in progress and the Court had not delivered judgment. If there was a Civil Revision No.4782 of 2005 - 2 - delay in the application, the delay could be compensated by cost and the rejection of such a plea would not advance the cause of justice. 3. The order passed on 23.08.2005 is set aside and the defendant shall be given an opportunity to produce the documents which are certified copies of official records and tender evidence in support of the documents. The Court shall also afford an opportunity to the defendants to rebut the evidence if circumstances would justify such a course. 4. The Civil Revision is allowed in the above terms. 5. The suit has been stayed by the admission of the Civil Revision and having regard to the disposal of the Civil Revision, it is requested that the trial Court would take the suit on priority basis and conclude the evidence and hear the arguments as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 26.05.2009 sanjeev