IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4755 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 21.04.2008 Satender Pal Singh @ Satender Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate. vs. Partap Singh and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.2005 passed by the learned Civil Court at Gurgaon whereby an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence moved by the defendant-petitioner has been dismissed. The facts may be noticed briefly. A suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by the respondent-plaintiffs in the year 1986. Their rebuttal evidence, however, was closed by an order of the trial Court dated 11.6.1992 which was impugned before this Court in Civil Revision No.2067 of 1992 and the proceedings before the learned trial Court were then stayed. It is now not in dispute that the said civil revision was finally disposed of by this Court on 25.10.2001. C.R. No.4755 of 2005 -2- During the pendency of the suit, some new documents came into existence in the year 1995 and in order to bring the same on record, the defendant-petitioner moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence on 30.4.1996. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Civil Court vide the impugned order dated 5.9.2005, giving rise to the present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner is consisting of (i) a certified copy of the order passed by this Court in C.R.No.2067 of 1992, (ii) an order passed by the Revenue Authorities in mutation proceedings and (iii) certified copies of the statements of S/Sh.Shiv Kumar and T.P.Singh, made before the revenue Authorities. So far as the first document is concerned, the learned trial Court has rightly declined the petitioner's prayer for the reason that a certified copy of the order passed by this Court in the above-mentioned civil revision is already on the record of the learned trial Court. To that extent, no interference in the impugned order is warranted. As regard to the remaining two documents sought to be produced by the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the same came into existence during the pendency of the suit i.e. in the year 1995. It also appears that the statements made before the Revenue Authorities and/or the order passed in those proceedings have some bearing on the merits of the case and would facilitate the learned trial Court to arrive at a just conclusion. Undoubtedly, the petitioner cannot be accused of any delay or negligence in not producing the above-stated documents at the time C.R. No.4755 of 2005 -3- when his evidence was being led, the same being not in existence at that time. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court, notwithstanding the deletion of Rule 17-A in Order 18 CPC, ought to have invoked its inherent jurisdiction to take the above-mentioned order/certified copies of the statements on record, more so when the respondent-plaintiffs could well be compensated with suitable costs. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the application moved by the petitioner-defendant for permission to lead additional evidence consisting of the documents/statements mentioned at Sr.Nos.(ii) and (iii) above is allowed and he is permitted to lead the above- stated additional evidence subject to, however, payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-plaintiffs. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Court on 23.5.2008. Needless to say that if the respondent-plaintiffs seek and/or are required to be given an opportunity to rebut the said additional evidence, such an opportunity shall be granted to them as well. April 21, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE