Civil Revision No. 5686 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5686 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.09.2011 Swaran Singh .... Petitioner Versus Balbir Singh ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Virinder Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This revision petition by the defendant brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.08.2011(Anneuxre P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Zira whereby the application of Balbir Singh, respondent-plaintiff for tendering jamabandi for the year 1998-99 in rebuttal evidence has been allowed. Briefly speaking, this suit is under the provisions of section 77 of the Registration Act seeking a direction to Sub Registrar, Zira to register a sale deed, which is already executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent on 08.06.1998 for land measuring 16 kanals 17 marlas. Another relief of possession by way of specific performance of the agreements of sale dated 21.5.1998 and 26.5.1998 for the land described in the head note of the plant is also sought. Civil Revision No. 5686 of 2011 --2-- Issues were framed in this case. The plaintiff led his entire evidence and closed the same on 04.01.2011 tendering copies of jamabandi and other documents. The petitioner then led his entire evidence and close the same on 5.4.2011. The case was thereafter adjourned for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It is at this stage that respondent filed an application for permission to tender a copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99 in rebuttal evidence or in the alternative by way of additional evidence claiming that this document would not change the nature of the case. In reply the prayer was opposed but vide order dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure P-4) the said application was allowed and the plaintiff-respondent has been permitted to tender the copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99 in rebuttal evidence. Dissatisfied with the impugned order, this revision petition has been brought by the defendant. I have heard Mr. Virinder Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that jamabandi for the year 1998-99 had been a document about which the plaintiff-respondent knew from the very beginning. According to him, this document was to be produced at the time when the plaintiff was leading his evidence in affirmative and this document could not be produced in rebuttal evidence. Civil Revision No. 5686 of 2011 --3-- The document, by its nature, is such that its genuineness could not be questioned. It is a part of record of rights, the entries of which carry presumption of correctness. If a suit is decided in the absence of some document, which is relevant and throws ample light on the controversy between the parties, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. However, if the document would not be relevant, still the defendant would not be prejudiced because the same would be kept out of consideration while deciding the case. The onus to proof in civil cases keeps shifting. After the plaintiff leads his evidence in affirmative, the defendant leads his evidence and then the plaintiff can lead evidence in rebuttal. Since the impugned order is of allowing to tender a document in rebuttal evidence, I find no patent illegality having been committed by learned trial court in doing so, vide the impugned order. The revision petition is, consequently dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh