Civil Revision No. 3454 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3454 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: January 22 , 2010 Nitu alias Nitin Goel ...... Petitioner Versus Tirath Ram and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate with Mr.Amit Kamboj, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order declining permission to the petitioners (defendants No.4 and 5) to lead additional evidence. The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit against HUDA and others claiming that the Khasra No. 391/2 was never acquired by them and further that the private respondents (i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.6) are wrongly claiming that they have purchased some portion of the said Khasra number from HUDA and further claimed an injunction that their possession be protected. In written statement the private respondents Civil Revision No. 3454 of 2008(O&M) 2 claimed that they had purchased total area of 2250 square meters having plot No. 173, situated at Sector 25, Part-II A, Panipat and that they had been offered and had taken possession on 9.7.2003 and had also raised construction up to the DPC level and received a certificate in this regard on 9.10.2003. In the replication the plaintiff-respondents denied that the petitioners were in possession. By the application for additional evidence the petitioners wanted to place on record ten documents which would, in their opinion, corroborate their plea that they had been given possession by the respondent-HUDA. This application has been declined on the ground that many of these documents were not referred either in the list of documents to be appended with the written statement or in the list of reliance. It has further been found that the petitioners have not mentioned the details of these documents. In my opinion even if the first ground may be valid yet the relevance of these documents is apparent. As regards the omission of the petitioners in not mentioning the same either in the list of documents appended with the written statement or in the list of reliance, the respondent-plaintiffs can be compensated by way of costs in this regard. Consequently this revision petition is allowed. The application for additional evidence is accepted. The trial Court is directed to grant to the petitioner one effective opportunity to place these documents on record. This would be subject to costs of Rs.2500/- to be paid to the plaintiffs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 22, 2010 sunita