The court emphasized the need for substantial justice and the admissibility of relevant documents, setting aside procedural technicalities.

1. The instant Civil Revision petition filed u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the order dated 06th July, 2013, passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, Kathua in Civil Suit titled, “D.D. Rai and others Vs. Jatinder Kumar and others.” for setting aside the same.

2. In the memo of revision petition, it has been stated that the petitioners are the defendants in the above titled Suit, filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein, for a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants/petitioners herein to remove the unauthorized construction raised on the Suit and the decree for possession of 01 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 88/5 situated at Village Chack Gainda, Tehsil Kathua. Even though the defendants/petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein pleaded the ownership of the suit land and also having raised construction prior to 1982, which was never objected by the plaintiffs/respondents, the only issue framed by the Trial Court is as under:-

“Whether the defendants have raised unauthorized constructions over the suit land and if so, whether the unauthorized constructions are liable to be demolished” expressly pleaded that the suit land?

3. The fact also emerges from the study of the file under consideration is that the Trial Court decreed the Suit vide judgment dated 29th September, 1999. However, the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 29th September, 1999 was allowed by the 1st Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19th October, 2001 and the case was remanded for fresh trial. The District Judge after going through the pleadings of the parties, framed the following additional issues:-

1-A. Whether the Suit is hit by the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act? If so, to what effect?

2-A. Whether the plaintiffs suffered from acquiescence? If so, how and what shall be its effect on the Suit?

The parties were also allowed to lead additional evidence.

4. The additional issue 1-A being crucial to determine the jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioners were able get a certified copy of the Report, annexed as Annexure-B to the Revision Petition, submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua dated 19th April, 1991 on the basis of the enquiry made by Sh. Lakhpat Rai, the then Assistant Commissioner with the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu regarding the land owned by Late Sh. Sain Dass, who is said to have died in 1987/1988. Immediately after getting this report, an application for production of this report as evidence, was filed on 04th June, 2013 on behalf of the petitioners to which respondents filed objections. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the application vide order impugned dated 06th July, 2013 holding:-

(i) The documents should have been filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1-A while filing the written statements.

(ii) They ought to have disclosed the fact that the document was not in their possession.

(iii) The authenticity and genuineness of this document is doubtful.

(iv) The document is not relevant.

(v) Copy of the document is said to have been issued on 28th August, 1999, but the petitioners have produced it without explaining the source from where they obtained the copy.”

5. It is also stated in the instant civil revision petition that the Trial Court has outrightly rejected the document, which is a certified copy issued under Section 76 of the Evidence Act and a certified copy of a public document is not required to be proved by calling a witness. The certified copy of the report being admissible in evidence will non-suit the plaintiffs/respondents because the question whether they are the owners of the suit land will have to be decided by the Collector, Agrarian and in view of the findings that late Sh. Sain Dass was the owner of 243 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land, out of which the family has sold 01 Kanal and 15 Marlas after Kharief 1971, who was left with 122 Kanals and 03 Marlas would invite the axe of Agrarian Reforms Act because he could not retain