Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Chand vs Ram Phal And Others on 18 January, 2012
CR 385 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CR 385 of 2012
Date of decision: 18.1.2012
Prem Chand
petitioner
vs
Ram Phal and others
respondent
Present:- Mr. VK Jindal, Advocate.
M.M.S.BEDI, J.
The plaintiff- petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 3.12.2001 dismissing his application for a direction to the Kannongo to prepare the intkhab of the land in dispute.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Intkhab is required at the stage of production of evidence in order to enable the plaintiff- petitioner to establish that the property in dispute is ancestral as mutation Nos. 2758 and 2759 have been challenged by the plaintiff- petitioner. The application has been dismissed on the ground that the courts cannot be used as a medium to collect evidence for the parties. Counsel has further contended that as per Chapter 9 Volume-I Rules V & VI of the High Court Rules and Orders, the Special Kanoongo appearing in evidence is required to bring with him the original record from which the excerpts are produced.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the suit filed by the plaintiff, wherein he has sought a declaration that civil court decree dated 12.6.1985 in a case titled Raghbir Singh @ Bira vs Parsa @ Parsa Ram, passed by Sub Judge CR 385 of 2012 -2- IIIrd Class and subsequent mutation No. 2759 are illegal, null and void being result of fraud and misrepresentation and that the petitioner be declared owner in possession of the suit land as per his share. As per the contents of application filed for a direction to kanungo to prepare intkhab of the land in dispute for the year 1939-40, it appears to be an attempt to utilize the services of the Kanungo, a revenue official, as per the provisions of Chapter 9 Volume-I, Rules and Order of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The procedure for obtaining excerpts is mentioned in paragraphs (1) to (4) , which reads as follows.
"1. Procedure for obtaining excerpts. For the purpose of making the information contained in the revenue records accessible to the litigating public and to the Courts, a special Kanungo or Patwari Moharrir has been appointed in all the districts of the Punjab, except Simla. The procedure to be followed in such cases is that the Court in which the suit is pending issues a summons to the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir, who,after preparing his excerpt, goes to the court on the date fixed, taking with him the revenue records from which the excerpt has been compiled. He is then placed in the witness box. Counsel thus have the opportunity of comparing the excerpt with the originals, and of examining him on any points they choose.
2. Particulars to be supplied to Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir. Parties who desires to summons the special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir as a witness with his records must be required to state succinctly and in writing the point on which information is required, and the application must be sent along with the summons to the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir. The Courts must see that the application is in a readily intelligible form before they issue it, and the practice of sending for the Special Kanungo, or Patwari Muharrir to tell him what is required must be discontinued, though courts may also issue written instructions, or CR 385 of 2012 -3- supplement or correct the application.
3. Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir should be utilied for special purposes and only at earlier stages. Court must be on guard against using the Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir for purposes for which he is not intended e.g. he is not to be required to give opinions, he is not to be used as a local Commissioner, or to be asked to provide instances in support of or to refuse an alleged custom. Courts must also see that, if the special kanungo or Patwari Muharrir is required, he is summoned for the first hearing after issues are framed, and not, as sometimes happens at present, at the end of the case. They must also never fail to ask him on oath whether the excerpt is in accordance with the revenue records.
4. Excerpt to be proved utilising of Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir by outlying courts. The excerpt prepared by the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir is not evidence unless proved and cannot be used as such. He cannot be allowed to go to outlying courts because he cannot take the revenue records with him, and without them there would be no check over his excerpt. It is however, very desirable that outlying courts should be able to utilize the Special Kanungo or the Patwari Muharrir, and as, the best practicable method of securing that object. Presiding Officers of outlying courts may issue either interrogatories for the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muuharrir on an open Commission to a senior official at Headquarters ordinarily and,unless there is some special reason to the contrary, the Senior Subordinate Judge. This official, who will have other duties and is described in the instructions appended as the officer-in- charge, will then comply with, the direction given, summon the Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir, record his statement on oath and make the return to the court. In this connection attention is drawn to Order XXVI Rule 18(1), of the Code of Civil procedure. The issue of a Commission should not become a source of unnecessary delay, and the officer-in-charge should in the absence of very strong CR 385 of 2012 -4- reasons proceed in the absence of parties if they do not appear. Parties should be informed that their appearance at the headquarters is optional if interrogatories are issued."
From the application filed by the petitioner, the excerpts of the year 1939-40 are sought to be prepared, whereas the subject matter of the suit is a civil court decree of the year 1985 and mutations entered on the basis of the said decree. The instructions have also been issued regarding the utilization of services of Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir in chapter 9. A word of caution has been mentioned in paragraph
(xiii) that the courts must understand that Special Kanungo or Patwari Muharrir is to be used only for the purpose of obtaining information, which is not readily available. The application has been rightly dismissed by the trial court . No ground is made out for interference in the said order.
Dismissed. Dismissal of this revision petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner to produce the relevant revenue record subject to its admissibility and relevance. In case it is required, in the interest of justice, to compare the revenue record produced in the court with the original record or the relevant record is not accessible, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the trial court again for summoning the concerned revenue officer.
January 18 , 2012 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE