Allowed¶28

Dera Baba Ram Dayal and Another v. Committee Dera Baba Tehal Dass and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2026CR/2503/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CR-2503-2026 (O&M), decided 18.03.2026 by Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. Keywords: Article 227 revision; closure of evidence; tender of documents; jamabandis 2007-08/2012-13/2017-18/2022-23; judgment dated 28.11.2003; PW Balraj Dass; Civil Judge (Junior Division) Moga; documents per se admissible; plaintiff may tender documents through counsel while closing evidence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed: impugned order dated 03.02.2026 set aside; Trial Court directed to permit the petitioners to tender the jamabandis (2007-08, 2012-13, 2017-18, 2022-23) and the judgment dated 28.11.2003 in evidence; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶28

Dera Baba Ram Dayal and Another Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 03.02.2026 closing the petitioners' evidence and declining permission to tender the jamabandis and the judgment dated 28.11.2003 in documentary evidence was legally sustainable.

¶16

Court's answer

The Trial Court's approach was highly erroneous: PW Balraj Dass being one of the plaintiffs, even though already examined as his own witness, either he or his counsel could have tendered the jamabandis and the certified copy of the judgment dated 28.11.2003 while closing their evidence; the documents were per se admissible and the plaintiffs could not be denied the opportunity to tender them while closing their evidence.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 03.02.2026 suffers from material illegality and manifest error, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and is set aside; the Trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners to tender the jamabandis and the judgment in evidence.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 03.02.2026 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga closing the petitioners'/plaintiffs' evidence and declining permission to tender jamabandis for 2007-08, 2012-13, 2017-18 and 2022-23 and a judgment dated 28.11.2003 in documentary evidence. Held: the Trial Court's approach was highly erroneous — PW Balraj Dass, one of the plaintiffs, having already been examined, either he or his counsel could tender the documents while closing the evidence; the documents were per se admissible and the plaintiffs could not be denied the opportunity to tender them. The impugned order, suffering from material illegality and manifest error, was set aside and the Trial Court directed to permit tender of the documents. Notice to respondents dispensed with; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

��

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

121

¶5

CR-2503-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.03.2026

¶6

DERA BABA RAM DAYAL AND ANOTHER

¶7

....PETITIONERS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

COMMITTEE DERA BABA TEHAL DASS AND OTHERS

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

¶12

��

¶13

Present : Mr.Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶14

��

¶15

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (ORAL)

¶16

This revision petition has been instituted by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga vide which the evidence of the petitioners has been ordered to be closed and permission to tender the jamabandis and one judgment dated 28.11.2003 in documentary evidence has been declined.

¶17

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is dispensed with, as it would only delay the proceedings and cause unnecessary expenditure to the respondents.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the material placed on record.

¶19

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.03.19 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

��

¶21

��

¶22

Perusal of the record shows that the petitioners had earlier filed Civil Revision No.9462 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the petitioners were granted two opportunities to lead their evidence. A further perusal of the impugned order reveals that on 03.02.2026, it was the second opportunity for the petitioners to lead evidence in compliance with the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by this Court. On the said date, PW Shinderpal Singh was examined and plaintiffs/petitioners sought to tender jamabandis for the year 2007-08, 2012-13, 2017-18 and 2022-23 as well as a judgment dated 28.11.2003, while closing their evidence. However, the Trial Court observed that one PW Balraj Dass, who intended to tender the said documents has already been examined earlier and had not tendered these documents during his examination while leading his evidence and did not allow petitioners to tender the documents..

¶23

However, the approach of the learned Trial Court is highly erroneous. PW Balraj Dass is one of the plaintiffs and even if, he had already been examined as his own witness, either he or his counsel could have tender the jamabandis and the certified copy of the judgment dated 28.11.2003 while closing their evidence. The said documents were otherwise per se admissible in evidence. The plaintiffs thus could not have been denied the opportunity to tender these documents while closing their evidence in the affirmative.

¶24

Resultantly, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 03.02.2026, suffers from material illegality and

¶25

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.03.19 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

��

¶27

��

¶28

manifest error and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 is hereby set aside and the Trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners to tender the aforesaid jamabandis and the judgment in evidence.

¶29

Pending misc application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed

¶30

of.

¶31

18.03.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE

¶32

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶33

VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.03.19 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dera Baba Ram Dayal and Another v. Committee Dera Baba Tehal Dass and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dera Baba Ram Dayal and Another v. Committee Dera Baba Tehal Dass and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhdev Singh Vs Rattan Singh & Ors.

Satyanarayan Alias Satyanarain Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sudesh Kumari Vs Anu and Others

Sanjay Wadhwa Vs Gyan Chand

Smt. Shimla Devi Vs Surjeet Singh

Lekh Raj and Others Vs Municipal Committee Ellenabad and Others