Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aman Preet Kaur (Minor) vs Naranjan Singh on 10 May, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Civil Revision No. 2194 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2194 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.5.2010
Aman Preet Kaur (minor)
.. Petitioner
v.
Naranjan Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. R. S. Budhwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 4.3.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for permitting her to lead additional evidence, was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against his great grand-father claiming her share in the property. The father of the petitioner- plaintiff having died and the mother having re-married and the petitioner being a minor, the suit was filed through her maternal grand father. After the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed, application was filed for leading additional evidence to prove the revenue record to show that the property in question is ancestral and relinquishment deed was signed by the respondent in favour of the grand father of the petitioner and a subsequent deed reversing the aforesaid relinquishment of the property. The application having been rejected, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner- plaintiff being a minor is wholly dependent upon her maternal grand father for pursuing the case. In fact, for the production of revenue record and excerpts therefrom, application dated 27.9.2008 was filed and the same was pending, when order dated 3.8.2009 was passed closing the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff. In fact, the counsel remained under the impression that next date has been fixed for leading the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff, however, the same was closed by Civil Revision No. 2194 of 2010 [2] order of the court. Even on the date, when the evidence was closed, cross- examination of one plaintiff's witness was recorded. The submission is that in the absence of the revenue record, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. The material as such has to come from the government records and there is no chance of its fabrication.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application cannot be allowed at this stage merely to enable the petitioner- plaintiff to fill in the lacuna in the evidence already led.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, considering the fact that the petitioner-plaintiff in the present case is a minor, who is dependent upon her guardian, being her maternal grand father, certainly deserves to be granted an opportunity to produce the evidence, which could not be produced at the relevant time, may be on account of some lapse, especially when the evidence sought to be led is in the form of revenue record, which cannot possibly be tampered with and also that the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for the purpose was pending and not decided by the court.
For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is allowed. The application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for permitting her to lead additional evidence is allowed.
The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.5.2010 mk