IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.03.2026 Darshan Kaur and others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Mandir Hanuman Ji and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Manvi Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Nissim Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by defendant No.2 against the order dated 13.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal whereby application filed by petitioner under Section 151 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: - 25.09.2013: The plaintiff/respondent No.1 had filed a Civil Suit dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure P-2) for possession, mesne profit, and permanent injunction.

22.10.2014: Petitioner had filed written statement dated 22.10.2014 (Annexure P-4).

17.03.2015 : Issues were first framed in the Suit vide order dated

17.03.2015 (Annexure P-6).

05.05.2018: Thereafter, an application was filed for framing of additional issues. The said application was allowed vide order dated 05.05.2018 (Annexure P-7) and additional issues were framed.

05.01.2024: In the meantime, defendant No.2 had expired and LRs of defendant No.2 had to be brought on record which was permitted vide order dated 05.01.2024.

23.01.2024: On 23.01.2024, petitioner had filed application for amendment of written statement.

06.02.2024: Vide order dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure P-8), the said application of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement was allowed.

13.02.2024: Subsequently, vide order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure P-9), issues were reframed.

Nil: It is at this stage, that the petitioner had filed instant application dated nil (Annexure P-10) under Section 151 CPC for additional evidence. 13.03.2024: Vide impugned order dated 13.03.2024, the said application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. It is inter alia submitted out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the application of the petitioners has been wrongly dismissed by learned Trial Court as admittedly, the property in question was in the possession of Mohinder Singh as a tenant, and on his death, his tenancy was inherited by his legal heirs.

4. It is submitted that the reframed issue was only to the effect as to whether Mohinder Singh had adopted Jaswant Singh as his son and after the death of Jaswant Singh, his legal heirs are entitled to inherit the tenancy. In this regard, the application for additional evidence filed by the petitioners was as to whether Jaswant Singh was the adopted son of Mohinder Singh. That being the basic issue, the evidence which was sought to be produced by the petitioner was the documents which are to prove the parentage of Jaswant Singh. The said documents are of the government records. It is pertinent to mention here that while leading the evidence in affirmative, the petitioner has placed on record the original ration card of Mohinder Singh to prove the members of his family i.e. ration card of 27.9.1991. To prove that ration card, officials from the Food and Supplies Department was summoned, who while appearing as a witness stated that he cannot comment on the correctness of the ration card without verifying the records. It is submitted that the original ration card of Mohinder Singh in which Jaswant Singh was mentioned as his son was already on record. Subsequently the petitioner was able to get the original ration card No.15548 which was signed by the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Kaithal on 24.1.1988. Now the petitioner is seeking to place on record the school certificate of Jaswant Singh of the year 1980. The said record is something which cannot be created, but in any case, the said document is important as the basic issue before the court below is regarding parentage a