Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.11.2009 Harbans Lal ......petitioner Versus Narender Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate. for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Mittal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Atul Gaur, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Narender Kumar filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.1.2003. During the pendency of the suit, when the case was listed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, petitioner-defendant moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence. Vide the impugned order dated 17.1.2008 the said application was dismissed. Hence, the Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2008 (O&M) 2 present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner only wanted to produce on record the certified copy of order dated 31.5.2003, vide which the suit filed by Manohar Lal against the petitioner was got dismissed as withdrawn. The said order could not be tendered in evidence by the counsel for the petitioner due to inadvertence. Learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the application had been rightly dismissed as the order now sought to be produced on record had no relevance with the case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. Admittedly, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence. However, the petitioner failed to produce the order dated 31.5.2003 on record. The order sought to be proved on record had been passed in the course of judicial proceedings in Civil Suit No.57-C of 18.3.2003 in case titled Manohar Lal vs. Harbans Lal. The petitioner simply wants to tender the order by way of additional evidence. Since the said order had not been placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner due to inadvertence, the same was liable to be allowed to be tendered in evidence by the petitioner by way of additional evidence. Civil Revision No. 1619 of 2008 (O&M) 3 The ends of justice requires that the order dated 31.5.2003 be proved on record so that the lis between the parties can be disposed of on merits. In case it is found by the trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties, that the order has no relevance with the matter in dispute, the same may not be relied upon by the learned trial Court but at this stage, it is premature to decide as to whether the order dated 31.5.2003 is relevant with regard to the matter in dispute or not. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in the way of justice. The paramount duty of the Court is to do justice between the parties. Even law bends before justice. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for permission to lead additional evidence filed by the petitioner stands allowed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 26, 2009 anita