Civil Revision No. 7604 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7604 of 2011 Date of decision. 08.12.2011 Rajiv Soni .... Petitioner Versus Rajender Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Rajiv Soni, defendant no.1 has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, whereby his application for additional evidence has been dismissed. Rajiv Soni, petitioner is defendant no.1 in the suit brought by Rajender Singh and others for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 02.05.2007 regarding the land in suit executed by defendant no.1 in Civil Revision No. 7604 of 2011 --2-- favour of defendant no.2 on the strength of general power of attorney dated 04.01.2006 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, as defendant no.1 was never appointed as attorney by the plaintiffs and that the document dated 04.01.2006 is also illegal. The application had been filed by Rajiv Soni under the provisions of section 151 CPC for grant of permission to place on file the receipt by way of additional evidence. It is claimed in the application that the plaintiffs themselves appointed defendant no.1 as their general attorney and plaintiffs received the entire sale consideration from the defendants and a receipt to this effect had been issued. It is claimed that the receipt could not be traced by the defendants prior to their adducing the evidence and now the same has been traced and the defendants want to place the same on the record. It is further averred that the said document is very important and would help in deciding the real question in controversy between the parties. The receipt is claimed to have been issued by the plaintiffs themselves at the time of receiving the sale consideration. It is claimed that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiffs if the receipt is allowed to be placed on the record. It is claimed that the said receipt has been found now on 17.09.2011 from the house and so it is being produced without any delay. The application is opposed by the plaintiffs. The application is claimed to have filed just to fill up lacunae left in the case as also to delay the proceedings. It is averred that there is no ground for permitting the additional evidence. It is further averred that the suit is fixed for final Civil Revision No. 7604 of 2011 --3-- arguments. It is further averred that the defendants did not produce this receipt while they were leading their evidence. The story that this receipt was not traceable and now that it is traced are also denied. The document is claimed to be a forged and fabricated document. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 08.11.2011 for the reason that the applicant was not in the knowledge of the aforesaid document and there was no reason why this document was not produced when the defendants were leading their evidence. I have heard Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the document is very material for decision of the suit because the payment will prove that the sale deed had been executed under a valid power of attorney, the consideration of which had reached the hands of the plaintiffs. He has submitted that this document was misplaced by the defendants and now it has been traced and as it is a material piece of evidence which should be permitted to be produced on the record. There can be no doubt about the fact that the defendants knew about this document as it was there in existence from the very beginning. First strange aspect of this case is that the receipt does not bear any date. Annexure P-6 is a photocopy of this receipt and it is an undated document. It must have been executed at or about the time of execution of the sale Civil Revision No. 7604 of 2011 --4-- deed and so it can very well be believed that this document should have been in existence before the defendants filed their written statement. In this case, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, the written statement was filed in November 2008. There is no reference to misplacement of this receipt in the said document. If this document was in existence and was not misplaced by the time written statement was filed, it should have been produced or a copy thereof should have been produced with the same which was not done in this case. Nothing such has been done in this case. So, the very basis for the claim that this receipt was executed by the plaintiffs, was mis-placed earlier and has been traced out now, is not established. The receipt as it is projected is a document of vital importance. There should have been an attempt on the part of the defendants to lead secondary evidence regarding the contents thereof, if this document was mis-placed and was not traceable. No such attempt was also made. These circumstances clearly show that this document has come now to fill up a lacunae left in the evidence of the defendants. Learned trial court has, thus, rightly rejected the application for additional evidence of the defendants vide the impugned order. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. 08.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge