The court emphasized the necessity of the documents for just and proper adjudication of the matter and the power of the court to correct an error in an order of the trial court which causes injustice to a party.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 11.11.2016 vide which the application for permission to lead additional evidence moved on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts relevant to the present case are that the land in question measuring 3 kanals and 4 marlas comprising Khewat No.1369, Khatoni No.1634, Rectangle No.96 Killa No.7/1 (3-4), Kitta-1 is situated within the revenue estate of Village Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, vide jamabandi for the year 2010-2011. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-petitioner that the land mentioned above came after bandobast and consolidation in lieu of land comprised in old khasra Nos.1406, 4918, 5696, 5715, 5716, 5717, 5719, 5720, 5722, 5724, 5726, 5727, 5728, 5730, 5731 to 5743, 5745 to 5748, 5706, 5771, 5777, 5778, 5779, 6187, 6188, 6189, 6190, 5721, 5725, 5723, 5729, 5744 (78 Bighas - 3 Biswas), Khewat No.641, Khatoni No.667 vide jamabandi for the year 1882-83. It was further the case set up that Musamat Mangla wife of Ganga Ram and Vikram Singh son of Kahna, the predecessors-ininterest of the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the land to the extent of 2/3 share of the land mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint. It was pleaded by the plaintiffpetitioner that the land mentioned in para-2 of the plaint was apportioned between the owners and was divided in the khewats including the suit land and separate khatonis were allotted to the mortgagor i.e. predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffpetitioner and two separate suits for redemption of other two parts of the land were also being filed by the plaintiffpetitioner. It was further pleaded that the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiff-petitioner i.e. Musamat Mangla wife of Ganga Ram and Vikram Singh son of Kahna had mortgaged the land with possession with Samanda, adopted son of Harlal and Nand Lal, adopted son of Ram Lal, the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants for an amount of Rs.99/- as mortgage money vide jamabandi for the year 1882-1883 as mentioned in column No.4. It was further the case that the defendant-respondents are transferees of the mortagee rights.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed.

4. The plaintiff-petitioner, by way of application to lead additional evidence, wishes to produce copies of Field Book/Khatoni Pamaish for the year 1885-86 relating to old Khasra Nos.1547, 1172 and jamabandi for year 1908-09, 1916-17, 1920-21, 1936-37 and 1944-45 and mutation Nos.835, 1037, 1040, 1046, 1078, 1235 and Shijra Nasab for the year 1908-09 relating to suit land, which, according to him, could not be produced due to oversight and despite due diligence. It was further stated in the application that the plaintiffpetitioner had certified copies of the abovesaid documents except for copies of the jamabandis for the year 1920-21, 1936-37 and 1944-45 and Field Book/Khatoni Pamaish for the year 1885-86 of the old khasra number 1172 and 1547 as the plaintiffs had applied for the certified copies of the same but they were not supplied to the plaintiff-petitioner by the concerned revenue officials. It was further stated that all the documents/records are public documents and are per se admissible and are necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit, as these documents go to the root of the case and would help the court to decide the suit properly and completely.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that several opportunities were availed of by the plaintiff-petitioner to lead his evidence and, in fact, vide order dated 13.01.2015 last opportunity was given to the plaintiff-petitioner to produce his entire evidence, that too subject to costs of Rs.200/-, but, on the next date, none had appeared and the previous costs were also not paid and, hence, the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismi