Civil Revision No.2172 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2172 of 2009 Date of Decision:21.04.2009 Shri Niwas & Ors. ....petitioners Versus Manoj Kumar & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Mani Ram Verma,Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the order dated 01.04.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.) Jhajjar, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 13 read with Section 151 CPC for deciding the objections raised by him regarding the admissibility of the documents during the course of producing evidence by the defendant/respondents, was dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding the suit property claiming its ownership and possession and restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering in their peaceful possession and from dispossessing them. The respondents filed written statement and thereafter issues were framed. The parties led their respective evidence in affirmative. The evidence of the defendants was closed on 17.12.2003. It is further the case of the petitioner that while leading evidence, the parties produced their documentary evidence also. When the evidence was being led by the plaintiff/petitioners, the respondents objected to the admissibility Civil Revision No.2172 of 2009 2 of the documents and vice-versa. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioners, he moved the present application on 13.10.2004. The aforesaid application was rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order observing that the present application was filed just to delay the proceedings of the case as the evidence in this case was closed on 17.12.2003 and thereafter the case was adjourned many times to enable the petitioner to lead rebuttal evidence, if any, but after a considerable delay of 10 months, the present application was filed and thus the application was not bona fide. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is well settled that when certain documents were taken on record subject to the admissibility of evidence, on an objection, it is necessary that the objection be considered and disposed of before finally deciding the suit on merits. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments in 1998(3) Civil Court Cases 530(1) (A.P.) C.Pramila & Anr. Versus State Bank of Hyderabad, 2006(1)Civil Court Cases 253(P & H) Girdhari Lal Versus Ritesh Mahajan & Anr., 2004(1) Civil Court Cases 01(S.C) R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder versus Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple & Ors., 2006(2) Civil Court Cases 654(P & H) Raj Kumar versus Bawa Jai Gopal Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no dispute with the ratio of law as decided in the aforementioned judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, these judgments are of no help to the petitioners as in the present case the petitioner has failed to point out from the record of the revision petition, any of the objections raised by the parties which were necessary to be decided before leading the rebuttal evidence by him. Civil Revision No.2172 of 2009 3 From the averments in the petition nothing can be made out as to in what manner the rights of the petitioners to lead rebuttal evidence has been prejudiced. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioners also disentitles them as admittedly evidence of defendants was closed on 17.12.2003 whereas the present application was filed on 13.10.2004 after a delay of 10 months and after availing many opportunities to lead rebuttal evidence. It is also relevant to mention that the case is at the stage of rebuttal evidence for the last 4 ½ years. For the reasons recorded above I find no merit in this revision petition. However, it will be open to the petitioners to raise all such pleas available to them with regard to the admissibility into evidence of such documents which were objected to by the parties. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 21.04.2009 neenu