Allowed¶15

Manjit Singh v. Balbir Singh Alias Minta and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2026CR/812/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; CR-812-2022; Manjit Singh v. Balbir Singh alias Minta & Anr.; Harkesh Manuja, J.; additional evidence; original mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970; certified copy already on record; due diligence; no deliberate delay; ejectment petition; Sub-Registrar Hoshiarpur; PW-2; brother Paramjit Singh; Harbans Lal; order dated 17.02.2022 set aside; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur declining the application is set aside, and permission is granted to the petitioner-landlord to produce and prove the original mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970 as additional evidence; pending application(s) stand disposed of. ¶15

Manjit Singh Vs Balbir Singh Alias Minta and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court correctly declined the petitioner-landlord's application to place the original mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970 on record as additional evidence in the ejectment proceedings.

¶10

Court's answer

Where the certified copy of the mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970 already formed part of the record, the application to produce the original document does not amount to absence of due diligence or an attempt to fill up any lacuna.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

There was no deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner in producing the original mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970, as it was previously not traceable and the application was filed as soon as it was made available to him by his brother Paramjit Singh.

¶15

Key takeaways

The evidentiary value of the original mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970 is to be considered at the time of adjudication of the ejectment petition.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (CR-812-2022, decided 07.05.2026, Harkesh Manuja, J.): The High Court set aside the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur refusing the landlord-petitioner leave to produce the original mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970 as additional evidence in pending ejectment proceedings. Held that since the certified copy of the deed was already on record, and the original had been untraceable until handed over to the petitioner by his brother Paramjit Singh shortly before the application, its production involved neither absence of due diligence nor any attempt to fill a lacuna, nor deliberate delay. The evidentiary value of the deed was left to be considered at the adjudication of the ejectment petition.

¶1

144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-812-2022

¶2

Date of Decision: May 07, 2026

MANJIT SINGH

........Petitione r

Versus

BALBIR SINGH ALIAS MINTA AND ANR ........Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: None for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Anshul Dhiman, Advocate f o r Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. ****

¶9

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

By w ay of present revision petiti o n, challenge has been laid t o an order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judg e (Junior Divisio n ), Hoshiarpur, whereby an application preferred at th e instance of pet i tioner-landlord seeking per m ission to place on record th e original mortg a ge deed dated 13.02.1970 as additional evidence wa s declined.

¶11

I h a ve gone through the paper- b ook. I find substance in th e present petitio n .

¶12

In the present case, the petitio n er-landlord being under th e impression tha t the original mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970, execute d by his father i n favour of one Harbans La l being not available, sough t permission to p rove the same by summonin g the concerned witness fro m the office of S u b-Registrar Hoshiarpur as PW-2. However, later at th e final stage of the proceedings, the ori g inal mortgage deed date d 13.02.1970 was handed over to him by h i s brother Paramjit Singh a s such, a reques t was made before the learn e d trial Court to produce th e original mortga g e deed by way of additional evidence. TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.05.11 16:50 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶13

CR-812-2022

¶14

-2-

¶15

In the given facts and circumstances when the certified copy of the mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970 already formed part of the record, the application made on behalf of the petitioner-landlord so as to produce the original document on record would not tantamount to absence of due diligence or an attempt to fill up to any lacunae. There does not appear to be any deliberate delay on the part of petitioner in production of the original mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970 as the same was previously not traceable and as and when, it was made available to the petitioner-plaintiff by his brother Paramjit Singh, an application was filed for production of the same by way of additional evidence. Moreover, the evidentiary value of the said document is to be considered at the time of adjudication of the ejectment petition. In such circumstances order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioner-landlord is allowed by granting permission to produce and prove on record the original mortgage deed dated 13.02.1970 as an additional evidence.

¶16