Allowed

Kehar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2025CR/5894/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed civil revision allowing production of official revenue records as additional evidence in a suit for possession of land, directing trial court to grant opportunities and defendants to rebut.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application for additional evidence allowed subject to depositing costs; trial court to grant opportunities to produce documents and examine witnesses.

Kehar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CR-5894-2025 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

CR-5894-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 12.09.2025

¶6

Kehar Singh ....Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Haryan a and Others ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

¶10

Present: M r . Rajinder Goel, Advocate for t h e petitioner. M r . Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Harya n a for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶11

-.-

¶12

MANDEEP PANNU J.

¶13

Th e present civil revision pet i tion under Article 227 of the Constitution o f India has been filed by th e petitioner–plaintiff Kehar Si n gh challenging the impugned order dated 07.07.20 2 5 passed by the learned Additi o nal Civil Judge (S e nior Division), Bilaspur, Dis t rict Yamuna Nagar, whereby the application mo v ed by the petitioner for leading a dditional evidence was dismiss e d.

¶14

Brief Facts

¶15

Th e petitioner, along with five o t her co-plaintiffs, instituted a c ivil suit seeking a d e cree for possession of the suit l and measuring 31 kanals 18 ma r las comprised in K hasra No. 143 as per Jamab a ndi for the year 2012–13. In the alternative, a d e cree of mandatory injunction w as sought, directing the defend a nts to pay compens a tion.

¶16

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CR-5894-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

It w as pleaded in the plaint that K ehar Singh had earlier filed a suit titled as “ Kehar Singh v. DFO , Territorial , Yamuna Nagar and Others ” see k ing restraint upon t he defendants from cutting a n d removing trees. That suit w as dismissed by t h e trial Court, and the copy of the judgment and decree w as produced by th e plaintiffs in affirmative evide n ce. The judgment of the appel l ate Court had also b een placed on record.

¶19

D u ring the pendency of the prese n t suit, defendants No. 5 to 18 w ere impleaded as p a rties with the permission of the Court. They contested the clai m by filing written s t atements. After completion of p leadings, issues were framed. T he plaintiffs led their affirmative evidence and cl o sed it. Thereafter, evidence of the defendants was also closed by Court order d a ted 12.01.2024, and the case w as posted for rebut t al evidence and final argument s .

¶20

At that stage, on 16.02.2024, th e plaintiffs moved an applica t ion seeking permission to produce additional evidence. The said application w as opposed by so m e of the private defendants. Ho w ever, by the impugned order d a ted 07.07.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed th e application.

¶21

Submission of learned counsel for the parties

¶22

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the applica t ion was dismissed i n a mechanical manner witho u t application of judicial mind. T he plaintiffs only s ought to produce revenue rec o rd and a demarcation report d a ted 11.09.2017, which were relevant for just adju d ication of the suit. The docum e nts were already n o ticed in para 2 of the impugn e d order, and there was no dis p ute about their aut h enticity as they are public d o cuments emanating from offi c ial custody. The tr i al Court erred in dismissing th e application merely on the gro u nd that the plainti f fs could have produced them e a rlier. It is urged that no preju d ice

¶23

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CR-5894-2025 (O&M)

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

would be cause d to the defendants if the docu m ents are taken on record subje c t to payment of cos t s.

¶27

Pe r contra , learned State counsel a ppearing on behalf of respond e nts No.1 to 4 has opposed the petition, submit t ing that the plaintiffs had a m ple opportunity to p roduce such evidence earlier, a nd the belated attempt at this s t age would delay pr o ceedings.

¶28

Findings

¶29

Th e application for additional e v idence reveals that the plain t iffs sought to produ c e the following documents:

¶30

Co p y of Jamabandi for the year 19 6 1–62;

¶31

Co p y of Khatoni for the year 1961 – 62;

¶32

Ce r tified copy of Field Book for the year 1961–62; 4. Co p y of Akash Sajra pertaining to K hasra No. 143;

¶33

Ce r tified copy of Musavi for the y e ar 1953–54;

¶34

Ce r tified copy of Musavi for the y e ar 1953–54 relating to Khasra N o. 14 3 ;

¶35

Ce r tified copy of Akash Shajra fo r the year 1960–61 pertainin g to K h asra Nos. 143 and 1468;

¶36

Co p y of demarcation report dated 1 1.09.2017, along with site plan. 9. Ex c ept for the demarcation repo r t, all other documents are pu b lic revenue record s which can be summoned fro m official custody. The demarca t ion report too is o f ficial in nature and can be pr o ved by summoning the concer n ed official along with the record.

¶37

Th e learned trial Court rejected t h e application solely on the gro u nd that the docum e nts could have been produce d earlier. While this factor ma y be

¶38

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CR-5894-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶40

relevant, it can n ot outweigh the consideration t h at these are official records, s o me of these directl y pertaining to Khasra No.143, w hich is the very subject matte r of the suit. The do c uments are material for determ i ning the title and possession o f the disputed prope r ty. The settled legal position is that additional evidence ma y be permitted wher e it is necessary for just decisio n of the case, even if due diligence was not shown e arlier, subject to compensating the opposite party with appropr i ate costs.

¶41

Th i s Court finds merit in the su b mission of the petitioner that the rejection of the application has resulted in failu r e to consider documents crucial for adjudication o f the real controversy. The documents are not voluminous, nor would their pr o duction prejudice the defenda n ts in any manner which canno t be compensated in terms of costs. On the contrar y , their exclusion would prevent the Court from ren d ering a complete and just decisi o n. Conclusion

¶42

In view of the foregoing discu s sion, the impugned order d a ted 07.07.2025 ca n not be sustained. The docu m ents sought to be produced as additional evid e nce, being official records, go to the root of the matter and t h eir consideration i s essential for effective adjudic a tion. Accordingly, the applica t ion for additional e v idence deserves to be allowed.

¶43

Th e impugned order dated 07. 0 7.205 is hereby set aside. T he application for additional evidence filed by t h e plaintiffs is allowed, subjec t to payment of cos t s of ₹5,000/– to be deposited w ith the Punjab and Haryana H igh Court Bar Ass o ciation Fund. The learned tri a l Court shall grant two effec t ive opportunities to the plaintiffs to produce the a d ditional documents and to exa m ine

¶44

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CR-5894-2025 (O&M)

¶46

- 5 -

¶47

the concerned official witnesses. Thereafter, the defendants shall be affor d ed opportunity to r e but the additional evidence.

¶48

With these observations and dire c tions, the civil revision petitio n is

¶49

allowed.

¶50

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶51

September 12, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE

¶52

Whether s peaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶53

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kehar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kehar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Raghbir Singh Vs Subha Chand

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Dinesh and Others

Devender Vs Naveen & Ors.

Charanjit Vs Pb.Wakf Board

United India Ins.Co. Vs Sita Wanti & Ors.

Kartar Singh Since Deceased through His Lrs Gurmeet Singh Vs Mangat Singh Since Deceased through Lrs