C.R.No.1128 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1128 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.8.2011 Simrat Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Karminder Singh ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate for the respondent. Jaswant Singh, J Petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for quashing of impugned order dated 4.1.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Fatehgarh Sahib whereby his application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.531/T dated 6.6.2007 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from digging/removing earth and making any nallah (Water-course) in the agricultural land as described in the head note of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff-petitioner filed an application for leading additional evidence. Upon notice, the same was opposed by filing reply by the defendant-respondent and after hearing both the sides, the application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 4.1.2011, hence the present petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the C.R.No.1128 of 2011 #2# paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main dispute in the case is as to whether the suit land is situated within the boundary wall of the Saffron City School or not and for this purpose, the plaintiff- petitioner wants to prove the demarcation report dated 26.11.2010 prepared by Kanungo Halqa Sirhind and he wants to prove the same by summoning the record from the Tehsil office, Fatehgarh Sahib and examine said Kanungo. It is further submitted that the petitioner wants to produce copy of mutation and Akas Latha to prove his case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- defendant vehemently opposed the present revision petition and argued that the alleged demarcation report has been created by the plaintiff in collusion with the revenue officials and the case is already fixed for arguments and the plaintiff wants to delay the matter on one pretext or the other. It is not in dispute that the civil suit was filed on 6.6.2007 and the dispute is regarding Khasra No.14//17/2 (2-15) situated in Village Kotla Bajwara, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib as per jamabandi for the year 2004-2005. It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that both the parties are joint owners in possession of the suit land, however, the same is specifically denied by the defendant-respondent in his reply to the civil suit by submitting that there is no joint possession and ownership over the suit land in view of the oral partition having taken place. Facts further reveal that the petitioner has leased out his land measuring 28 kanal 3 marla for 99 years to Sardar Karam Singh Memorial Trust for construction of the School and a boundary wall as well as building has already been constructed over the said C.R.No.1128 of 2011 #3# land. From the pleadings of the parties, the relevant issues had been framed by the learned trial Court and both the parties led their evidence. It is necessary to mention here that the defendant closed his evidence on 23.7.2010 and case was fixed for arguments and rebuttal evidence, if any. At this stage, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application for demarcation of suit land but the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.8.2010 (R.1) and revision thereagainst has also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2010(R.2). It is only thereafter that the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application for demarcation without the permission of the learned trial Court before the Assistant Collector-cum- Tehsildar, Fatehgarh Sahib on 12.11.2010, who directed the Halqa Kanungo to submit the demarcation report and in these circumstances, the alleged report was prepared by one Bhupinder Singh- Kanungo, Sirhind on 26.11.2010 (P.3). It is not out of place to mention here that neither from the report (P.3) nor from the application for additional evidence (P.4), it is established that the defendant-respondent was present when the alleged report was prepared by the Halqa Kanungo. Once the learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for demarcation of the land in dispute, in my opinion, the report prepared by Kanungo is irrelevant and of no consequences. Keeping in view the pleadings of both the parties, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-petitioner to bring on record the relevant evidence at the appropriate stage of the case as he was very much aware from the very beginning that the respondent-defendant is disputing the C.R.No.1128 of 2011 #4# claim of the plaintiff-petitioner regarding joint ownership and possession over the suit land. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that it is too late at this stage to file such an application for leading additional evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. Consequently the present petition being devoid of any merit worth interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is dismissed. August 04, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE