C.R. No.6017 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6017 of 2006 Date of Decision: 28.2.2008 Raj Pal and another .....Petitioners Vs. M/s Jindal Ispat and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.M. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision is to an order dated 23.10.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh, rectifying/correcting his order dated 13.5.2006 and permitting the respondents to tender into evidence partnership deeds dated 1.4.1995 and 1.4.1997. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents filed an application for leading additional evidence, i.e. Forms A and C dated 14.6.1993 and partnership deeds dated 1.4.1995 and 1.4.1997. However, while addressing arguments, the prayer for additional evidence was confined to forms A and C and the learned trial Court, therefore, allowed the application for additional evidence with respect to forms A and C. The respondents, thereafter, filed an application, praying for rectification/amendment of the order dated 13.5.2006, on the plea that inadvertently, relief had not been granted with respect to partnership deeds dated 1.4.1995 and 1.4.1997. The learned trial Court, pursuant to the impugned order, rectified its order and granted liberty to the respondents to C.R. No.6017 of 2006 2 tender the aforementioned documents into evidence. Counsel for the petitioners further asserts that as arguments were addressed, with respect to forms A and C alone, the order dated 13.5.2006 could not be rectified by the trial Court. Counsel for the respondents, however, states that a perusal of the application for additional evidence, reveals that the respondents prayed for liberty to produce forms A and C dated 14.6.1993, as also the partnership deeds dated 1.4.1995 and 1.4.1997 as additional evidence. While allowing the application for additional evidence, the learned trial Court, inadvertently, failed to make a reference to the partnership deeds, thus, necessitating the filing of an application for rectification of the order. It is further asserted that as the learned trial Court has rectified its mistake , the revision petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Pursuant to the impugned order, the learned trial Court has rectified its order dated 13.5.2006 and allowed the petitioners to lead the partnership deeds dated 1.4.1995 and 1.4.1997 in additional evidence. It is not denied that the application for additional evidence was filed, with respect to four documents, namely, Forms A and C dated 14.6.1993 and the two partnership deeds referred to herein above. In the order dated 13.5.2006 and as held by the learned trial Court, it committed an error in not making any reference to the partnership deeds. I find no reason to doubt the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The trial Court's satisfaction that it committed an error in not referring to the partnership deeds in its order C.R. No.6017 of 2006 3 dated 13.5.2006 is neither perverse nor arbitrary. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. 28.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE