CR No.1241 of 2014

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.1241 of 2014

Date of Decision: 19.02.2014

Reshmo Devi and another

..... Petitioners

Versus

Tara Devi and another

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:

Mr. P.C. Rakra, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23^rd January,

2014 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Dasuya rejecting the request of the plaintiffs, petitioners before this Court,

for summoning the Kanungo/Clerk from the Revenue Office at Hoshiarpur

to produce the revenue excerpts from where the nature and character of the

property described in the application, and subject matter of the suit, can be

determined, that is, whether it is ancestral/co-parcenary property or not.

Instead of summoning such witness, the trial Court has rejected the request

for the reason that the plaintiffs have taken many dates despite last

opportunity granted to conclude their evidence. The learned trial Court has

also reasoned that nothing has been mentioned in the application as to why

it has been filed at a belated stage. It ought to have been produced or called

for at the earliest stage. Though the conduct of the plaintiffs in taking time

again and again to conclude their evidence cannot be complemented but yet

in the interest of justice, this Court is impelled to intervene so that justice is

Mittal Manju

2014.02.24 11:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR No.1241 of 2014

-2-

seen to be done.

Issuing notice to the respondents to hear them would without

sufficient reason unnecessarily delay the matter further. Nor can the

defendants be seriously seen to oppose such a prayer since both the

plaintiffs and defendants are members of the same family.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order

closing evidence is set aside. The trial Court would now issue summons to

the official concerned in the Revenue Department as proposed by the

plaintiffs to appear as a formal witness with the original revenue record

together with the revenue excerpt duly verified for proper production on the

judicial file, duly exibited.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Order dasti.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)

JUDGE

19.02.2014

manju

Mittal Manju

2014.02.24 11:02

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh