Prakash Chand and Anr. Vs. Jamana Devi an Ors. CMP No.17720 of 2025 in RSA No.123 of 2025 30.07.2025 Present: Mr. Sumit Bains and Mr. Mohd. Aamir, Advocates, for the applicants. CMP No.17720 of 2025 The Appeal, in the case at hand, was decided on 24th July 2025. Prior to the disposal of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been filed by the appellants on 19th July 2025, however the same was not listed before the Court, when the appeal was taken up for consideration at the admission stage. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, the application has come for the consideration, post disposal of the regular second appeal. Heard counsel for the applicant. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed by the respondents. The suit filed was a simplicitor suit for injunction. Ownership and possession of the suit land was being claimed on the basis of jamabandi for the year 2007- 2008 (Ex P-1) before the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Presumption raised in favour of the respondents by the afore-stated revenue record, could not be rebutted by the present appellants/applicants before the Courts below. In the suit filed by the respondents, before the trial court, no counter claim laying a challenge to the ownership and possession of the respondents was filed by the present applicants. Rather to the contrary, a separate Civil Suit No.528/13 challenging mutation No.84, by virtue of which the respondents claimed ownership and possession over the suit land, in terms of the Collector’s order dated 1976, was filed by the present applicants. No effort was made by the present applicants to get the suit so filed for declaration consolidated with the suit in the case at hand. Before the trial Court, photocopies of documents now sought to be produced were filed. Photocopies being inadmissible were marked and not taken into account. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is evident that the courts below have correctly refused to admit evidence now sought to be placed on record by way of the present application, as what was placed before the courts below were photocopies of the same. Besides the aforesaid, it is evident that despite being aware of the said documents, which are now sought to be brought on record, no measures were taken to bring their originals on record. The same shows a complete lack of diligence on the part of the present applicants. Other than the aforesaid, an attempt is being made in the present application to put the blame on the shoulders of the Advocate engaged, to bring the originals on record. A practice which has been consistently deprecated by Courts. Moreover, in my considered view, the documents now sought to be placed on record, are not required for pronouncing the judgement in the case at hand, therefore, the present application being devoid of merit is dismissed. Application stands disposed of. CMP No.17722 of 2025 In view of the aforesaid, the present application has become infructuous. Application stands disposed of. (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 30th July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)