Allowed

Prem Devi and Anr. v. Rohtash and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2012CR/4623/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under Article 227, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana partly allowed the petition, set aside the trial court's dismissal of an application for additional evidence, and permitted production of certified copies of Jamabandi and mutation records upon payment of costs, conditional on linking them to the suit land.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application for additional evidence allowed partly permitting production of certified Jamabandi and mutation records upon payment of Rs.2,500/-

Prem Devi and Anr. Vs Rohtash and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No.4623 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CIVIL REVISION NO.4623 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FABRUARY 1, 2012

Prem Devi & another

.... Petitioners

Versus

Rohtash & another

.... Respondents

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶11

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. O. P. Goel, Senior Advocate with

¶14

Mr. Gagan Bajaj, Advocate for respondents.

¶15

¶16

L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Plaintiffs Prem Devi and her minor son Sombir have filed revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 26.07.2011(Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-3) moved by plaintiffs-petitioners for additional evidence.

¶18

Plaintiffs have challenged release deed and Will executed by Chhajju Ram, since deceased, inter alia on the ground that suit land was ancestral joint Hindu family property. To prove the same, the plaintiffs have produced excerpt in evidence.

¶19

The plaintiffs alleged in application Annexure P-3 that they want to produce copy of Jamabandi Panjam (initial jamabandi) of Khewat No.19 Khatoni Nos.151 to 160 and mutation No.16 of inheritance of Chandgi Ram in

¶20

CR No.4623 of 2011

¶21

-2-

¶22

favour of Rajmal. The plaintiffs also want to summon Record Keeper with aforesaid record and Tek Ram retired Kanungo to prove the documents and to prove ancestral nature of the suit land. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned Order Annexure P-5. Which is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

¶24

file.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners want to produce revenue documents in additional evidence, which are not likely to be fabricated and therefore, proposed additional evidence should have been allowed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the suit land comprised of Khewat Nos.67, 68 and 69 and Khatoni Nos.101 to 106 and therefore, Jamabandi of Khewat No.19 Khatoni Nos.151 to 160 sought to be produced is not relevant. It was also pointed out that the plaintiffs have themselves mentioned in application Annexure P-3 that documents sought to be produced are per se admissible in evidence, but still the plaintiffs want to summon Record Keeper and Tek Ram retired Kanungo for which there is no justification. It was also contended that these documents were already in the knowledge of the plaintiffs and should have been produced when the plaintiffs led their evidence.

¶27

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

¶28

Insofar as examination of Record Keeper and retired Kanungo by way of additional evidence is concerned, no justification for the same is made out either in the application Annexure P-3 or during the course of arguments by counsel for the petitioners. However, insofar as production of Jamabandi

¶29

CR No.4623 of 2011

¶30

-3-

¶31

and mutation in question is concerned, the same should have been allowed on payment of cost because the said documents are not likely to be fabricated. Certified copies of these documents are per se admissible in evidence and defendants/respondents would get opportunity to rebut the same. Insofar as Khewat number and Khatoni numbers are concerned, it would be for the plaintiffs to link the same form the documents sought to be produced with the suit land because in the intervening period Khewat and Khatoni numbers might have changed. If the plaintiffs are not able to link the same, obviously the plaintiffs would not gain anything by producing these documents.

¶32

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned order Annexure P-5 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Application Annexure P-3 moved by plaintiffs-petitioners is allowed partly. Plaintiffs are permitted to produce certified copy of Jamabandi Panjam and mutation No.16 by way of additional evidence, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost precedent. Defendants shall be granted opportunity by the trial Court to lead evidence in rebuttal of aforesaid additional evidence of the plaintiffs.

¶33

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶34

01.02.2012 'raj'

Prem Devi and Anr. v. Rohtash and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Devi and Anr. v. Rohtash and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Singh Batra Vs Gurpreet Singh and Anr.

Sonia Vs Vinod Kumar

Ram Chander Vs Ramanand and Anr.

Ashik Ali Vs State Bank of India

Sarwan Singh Vs Roshan Lal

Nachhattar Kaur Vs Baldev Singh & Ors.