Civil Revision No. 6944 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6944 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.9.2011 Sumer Singh ... Petitioner Versus Kashi and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain , Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed to assail the order dated 1.10.2010, passed by the trial Court, whereby the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 7 were permitted to produce the sale deed dated 2.6.1964 on record by way of additional evidence. While allowing the application dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure P1), the trial Court has held that production of sale deed dated 2.6.1964 would not cause any prejudice to the defendants. It is not disputed that during the pendency of the present petition, additional evidence has been led and the sale deed dated 2.6.1964 has been proved and brought on record. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs, in the present case, had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. To seek declaration in the suit, the plaintiffs have relied upon sale deed Civil Revision No. 6944 of 2010 2 dated 14.7.1964, which was an unregistered document saying that the plaintiffs' father Ramji Lal had purchased the property from Chater for a sale consideration of ` 99 through sale deed dated 14.7.1964 Ex.P1, whereas the defendants took a stand that Chater had never sold suit property to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and furthermore they have stated that the sale deed dated 14.7.1964 is a forged document. In the application for leading additional evidence, it was stated that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have been able to trace out a registered sale deed bearing No. 369 executed by Chater in favour of Ram Lal and Daulat Ram. I have perused the impugned order dated 1.10.2010, passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has exercised its discretion validly as sale deed bearing No. 369 dated 2.6.1964 was a necessary document to decide the real controversy between the parties. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 16, 2011 “DK”