Punjab-Haryana High Court
Umed Singh vs Smt. Chawli And Others on 20 September, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CR No.4786 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.4786 of 2011 (O & M)
Date of Decision:20.09.2013.
Umed Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Chawli and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (Oral)
Instant civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence in appeal has been dismissed.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner and proforma Kumar Parveen 2013.09.24 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4786 of 2011 2 respondents no.33 to 35 filed suit for declaration under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The trial Court dismissed the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010, the petitioner and others preferred an appeal. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner and others moved application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to bring on record jamabandi for the year 1952-53 to show from whom the property came to different persons. The said application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.07.2011. Hence, this revision petition.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the prayer made in this petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Jamabandi for the year 1952-53 is a public document and per se admissible. This document is necessary for the just decision of the appeal. Merely delay in filing an application cannot be a ground for declining the relief, as the delay can be compensated in terms of costs. Rules of procedure are handmaidens to the administration of justice and are meant to meet the ends of justice and not to thwart or obstruct the same. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner is offered an opportunity to lead additional evidence as prayed. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is allowed to produce copy of jamabandi for the year 1952-53 as additional evidence, subject to costs Kumar Parveen 2013.09.24 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.4786 of 2011 3 of ` 5000/- to be paid to respondents no.1 to 32.
For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 23.07.2011 is set aside. The revision petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge September 20, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.09.24 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh