C.R. No. 2071 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2071 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 25, 2011 Jaibir …..Petitioner Vs. Richhpal and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff has preferred this revision petition against the order dated March 17, 2011 dismissing the application of the plaintiff- petitioner for proving by way of additional evidence a school leaving certificate to enable the plaintiff- petitioner to establish that his date of birth is January 2, 1979 and that he joined Government Senior Secondary School on May 13, 1993 and left the school on July 19, 1993. Copy of the said certificate has been placed on record as annexure P-3. The said certificate seems to have C.R. No. 2071 of 2011 (O&M) [2] been issued on January 22, 1997. The suit of the plaintiff was filed in the year 1998 for a declaration and possession of a property which was sold to the defendant- respondents vide sale deed dated June 19, 1995 on the ground that the plaintiff was minor on the date of the transfer transaction as such these are not binding upon his rights. The application was contested by the defendant- respondents taking up the plea that the application has been filed with malafide intention at belated stage and that the additional evidence which is sought to be produced is irrelevant. It was pleaded in the reply that the father of the plaintiff- appellant Mohinder had died on October 25, 1977 and the plaintiff- petitioner was born on October 21, 1976 as mentioned in the death and birth certificate Ex.D1 and Ex.DX which are already on the record. It had also been pleaded that a school certificate Ex.P1/B has been placed on the files by the plaintiff- petitioner. It was claimed that the plaintiff-petitioner was aware of the falsity of the document which stand thoroughly exposed and the evidence of the plaintiff stood concluded after utilizing 7 years of litigation. It was also mentioned in the reply that the evidence of the defendant has already been produced and the case is fixed for final arguments. The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff - petitioner has not mentioned in his application that the proposed evidence was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff- petitioner or that despite due diligence he could not produce the said evidence at the time when the case was closed for his evidence. The Courts below has also relied upon the omission of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC by virtue of amendment of 2002. C.R. No. 2071 of 2011 (O&M) [3] Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the plaintiff- petitioner has been able to substantiate by cogent evidence on record that his date of birth is January 2, 1979 and that he was minor at the time of transfer transaction which was challenged in the suit. The document which is sought to be established by way of additional evidence is a piece of corroborative evidence and would substantiate the plea of the plaintiff- petitioner regarding his date of birth which is relevant for the just decision of the case. I have considered the contentions of counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the document. The document was allegedly issued on January 22, 1997 and is merely a transfer certificate indicating that the plaintiff- petitioner was admitted in Government Senior Secondary School, Wazirabad on May 13, 1993 and his name was withdrawn on July 19, 1993 when he was a student of class 10th. The document which had been issued in the year 1997 much before the filing of the suit cannot be said to be not within the knowledge of the plaintiff- petitioner. Moreover, the said document indicating that a student who remained on the rolls of a school for only summer vacation period i.e. June and July, cannot be of any relevance to establish the date of birth. No doubt, the right of a party to produce additional evidence, if it is required for the just decision of the case, is not barred even after the amendment of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC but the facts and circumstances of each case are to be seen before enabling a party to produce additional evidence. C.R. No. 2071 of 2011 (O&M) [4] It has been informed that the document was part of the judicial record having been produced at initial stage but the same could not be produced on account of inadvertence of the plaintiff. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere in the discretionary order passed by the Court below. The production of additional evidence does not seem to be necessary for the just decision of the case as the document does not appear to be of much relevance to establish the date of birth as the case of plaintiff- petitioner depends upon the date of birth to be established by him. In view of the stage of the case i.e. the argument stage, it is not deemed appropriate to delay the proceedings any further as the suit is pending since 1998. Dismissed. Any observations made in this order will not prejudice the rights of the plaintiff- petitioner. All the observations in this revision petition are meant for the adjudication of this revision petition only. March 25, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE