IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CR-5894-2025 (O&M)

Decided on :- 12.09.2025 Kehar Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–plaintiff Kehar Singh challenging the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner, along with five other co-plaintiffs, instituted a civil suit seeking a decree for possession of the suit land measuring 31 kanals 18 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 143 as per Jamabandi for the year 2012–13. In the alternative, a decree of mandatory injunction was sought, directing the defendants to pay compensation.

3. It was pleaded in the plaint that Kehar Singh had earlier filed a suit titled as “Kehar Singh v. DFO, Territorial, Yamuna Nagar and Others” seeking restraint upon the defendants from cutting and removing trees. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court, and the copy of the judgment and decree was produced by the plaintiffs in affirmative evidence. The judgment of the appellate Court had also been placed on record.

4. During the pendency of the present suit, defendants No. 5 to 18 were impleaded as parties with the permission of the Court. They contested the claim by filing written statements. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed. The plaintiffs led their affirmative evidence and closed it. Thereafter, evidence of the defendants was also closed by Court order dated 12.01.2024, and the case was posted for rebuttal evidence and final arguments.

5. At that stage, on 16.02.2024, the plaintiffs moved an application seeking permission to produce additional evidence. The said application was opposed by some of the private defendants. However, by the impugned order dated

07.07.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed the application.

Submission of learned counsel for the parties

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application was dismissed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. The plaintiffs only sought to produce revenue record and a demarcation report dated 11.09.2017, which were relevant for just adjudication of the suit. The documents were already noticed in para 2 of the impugned order, and there was no dispute about their authenticity as they are public documents emanating from official custody. The trial Court erred in dismissing the application merely on the ground that the plaintiffs could have produced them earlier. It is urged that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the documents are taken on record subject to payment of costs.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 has opposed the petition, submitting that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to produce such evidence earlier, and the belated attempt at this stage would delay proceedings.

Findings

8. The application for additional evidence reveals that the plaintiffs sought to produce the following documents:

1. Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1961–62;

2. Copy of Khatoni for the year 1961–62;

3. Certified copy of Field Book for the year 1961–62; 4. Copy of Akash Sajra pertaining to Khasra No. 143;

5. Certified copy of Musavi for the year 1953–54;

6. Certified copy of Musavi for the year 1953–54 relating to Khasra No.

143;

7. Certified copy of Akash Shajra for the year 1960–61 pertaining to Khasra Nos. 143 and 1468;

8. Copy of demarcation report dated 11.09.2017, along with site plan.

9. Except for the demarcation report, all other documents are public revenue records which can be summoned from official custody.