CR-5894-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kehar Singh State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE 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 challenging the impugned order dated Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilasp application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence was dismissed. Brief Facts 2. The petitioner, along with five other co suit seeking a decree for possession of the su comprised in Khasra No. 143 as per Jamabandi for the year 2012 alternative, a decree of mandatory injunction was sought, directing the defendants to pay compensation. (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS State of Haryana and Others CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner 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. The petitioner, along with five other co 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 alternative, a decree of mandatory injunction was sought, directing the defendants to pay compensation. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5894-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 12.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–plaintiff Kehar Singh 2025 passed by the learned Additional ur, District Yamuna Nagar, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence was dismissed. The petitioner, along with five other co-plaintiffs, instituted a civil it 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 - The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the plaintiff Kehar Singh 2025 passed by the learned Additional ur, District Yamuna Nagar, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence was dismissed. plaintiffs, instituted a civil it land measuring 31 kanals 18 marlas 13. In the alternative, a decree of mandatory injunction was sought, directing the defendants TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5894-2025 (O&M) 3. It was pleaded in the plaint that Ke titled as “Kehar Singh v. DFO restraint upon the defendants from cutting and removing trees. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court, and the copy of the judgment and decr 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 a defendants was also closed by Court order dated posted for rebuttal evidence and final arguments. 5. At that stage, on 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 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 err that the plaintiffs could have produced them earlier. It is urged that no prejudice (O&M) It was pleaded in the plaint that Ke Kehar Singh v. DFO, Territorial, Yamuna Nagar restraint upon the defendants from cutting and removing trees. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court, and the copy of the judgment and decr produced by the plaintiffs in affirmative evidence. The judgment of the appellate Court had also been placed on record. 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 posted for rebuttal evidence and final arguments. At that stage, on 16.02.2024, the plaintiffs moved an applicat seeking permission to produce additional evidence. The said application was opposed by some of the private defendants. However, by the impugned order dated , the learned trial Court dismissed the application. Submission of learned counsel for the parties 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 , 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 -2- It was pleaded in the plaint that Kehar Singh had earlier filed a suit 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 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 ffirmative 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. 2024, the plaintiffs moved an applicat seeking permission to produce additional evidence. The said application was opposed by some of the private defendants. However, by the impugned order dated , the learned trial Court dismissed the application. 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 , 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 ed in dismissing the application merely on the ground that the plaintiffs could have produced them earlier. It is urged that no prejudice - har Singh had earlier filed a suit ” seeking restraint upon the defendants from cutting and removing trees. That suit was ee was produced by the plaintiffs in affirmative evidence. The judgment of the appellate 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 ffirmative evidence and closed it. Thereafter, evidence of the 2024, and the case was 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 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 , 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 ed in dismissing the application merely on the ground that the plaintiffs could have produced them earlier. It is urged that no prejudice TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5894-2025 (O&M) would be caused to the defendants if the documents are taken on record subject to payment of costs. 7. Per contra No.1 to 4 has 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 2. Copy of Khatoni for the year 1961 3. Certified copy of Field Book for the year 1961 4. Copy of Ak 5. Certified copy of Musavi for the year 1953 6. Certified copy of Musavi for the year 1953 143; 7. Certified copy of Ak Khasra Nos. 143 and 1468; 8. Copy of demarcation report dated 9. Except for the demarcation report, all other documents are public revenue records which can be summoned from official custody. The demarcation report too is official in nature and can be proved by summoning the concerned official along with the record. 10. The that the documents could have been produced earlier. While this factor may be (O&M) would be caused to the defendants if the documents are taken on record subject to payment of costs. Per contra, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 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. e application for additional evidence reveals that the plaintiffs sought to produce the following documents: Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1961 Copy of Khatoni for the year 1961– Certified copy of Field Book for the year 1961 py of Akash Sajra pertaining to Khasra No. 143; Certified copy of Musavi for the year 1953 Certified copy of Musavi for the year 1953 143; Certified copy of Akash Shajra for the year 1960 Khasra Nos. 143 and 1468; Copy of demarcation report dated 11.09. Except for the demarcation report, all other documents are public revenue records which can be summoned from official custody. The demarcation s official in nature and can be proved by summoning the concerned official along with the record. The learned trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground that the documents could have been produced earlier. While this factor may be -3- would be caused to the defendants if the documents are taken on record subject to arned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to produce such evidence earlier, and the belated attempt at this stage e application for additional evidence reveals that the plaintiffs Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1961–62; –62; Certified copy of Field Book for the year 1961–62; Sajra pertaining to Khasra No. 143; Certified copy of Musavi for the year 1953–54; Certified copy of Musavi for the year 1953–54 relating to Khasra No. Shajra for the year 1960–61 pertaining to 11.09.2017, along with site plan. Except for the demarcation report, all other documents are public revenue records which can be summoned from official custody. The demarcation s official in nature and can be proved by summoning the concerned trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground that the documents could have been produced earlier. While this factor may be - would be caused to the defendants if the documents are taken on record subject to arned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents opposed the petition, submitting that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to produce such evidence earlier, and the belated attempt at this stage e application for additional evidence reveals that the plaintiffs 54 relating to Khasra No. 61 pertaining to Except for the demarcation report, all other documents are public revenue records which can be summoned from official custody. The demarcation s official in nature and can be proved by summoning the concerned trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground that the documents could have been produced earlier. While this factor may be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5894-2025 (O&M) relevant, it cannot outweigh the consideration that these are official records of these directly pertaining to Khasra No.143, which is the very subject matter of the suit. The documents are material for determining the title and possession of the disputed property. The settled legal position is that additional evidence may be permitted where it is necessary for just decision of the case, even if due diligence was not shown earlier, subject to compensating the opposite party with appropriate costs. 11. This Court finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that the rejection of the application has resulted in failure to consider documents crucial for adjudication of the real controversy. The documents are not voluminous, nor would their production pr compensated in terms of costs. On the contrary, their exclusion would prevent the Court from rendering a complete and just decision. Conclusion 12. In view of the foregoing 07.07.2025 cannot be sustained. The documents sought to be produced as additional evidence, being official records, go to the root of the matter and their consideration is essential for effective adjudication. Accordingly, the application for additional evidence deserves to be allowed. 13. The impugned order application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiffs is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Court Bar Association Fund. opportunities to the plaintiffs to produce the additional documents and to examine (O&M) ant, it cannot outweigh the consideration that these are official records directly pertaining to Khasra No.143, which is the very subject matter of the suit. The documents are material for determining the title and possession of the property. The settled legal position is that additional evidence may be permitted where it is necessary for just decision of the case, even if due diligence was not shown earlier, subject to compensating the opposite party with appropriate This Court finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that the rejection of the application has resulted in failure to consider documents crucial for adjudication of the real controversy. The documents are not voluminous, nor would their production prejudice the defendants in any manner which cannot be compensated in terms of costs. On the contrary, their exclusion would prevent the Court from rendering a complete and just decision. In view of the foregoing discussion cannot be sustained. The documents sought to be produced as additional evidence, being official records, go to the root of the matter and their consideration is essential for effective adjudication. Accordingly, the application ional evidence deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 07.07.205 application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiffs is allowed, subject to payment of costs of ₹5,000/– to be deposited with the sociation Fund. The learned trial Court shall grant two effective opportunities to the plaintiffs to produce the additional documents and to examine -4- ant, it cannot outweigh the consideration that these are official records, some directly pertaining to Khasra No.143, which is the very subject matter of the suit. The documents are material for determining the title and possession of the property. The settled legal position is that additional evidence may be permitted where it is necessary for just decision of the case, even if due diligence was not shown earlier, subject to compensating the opposite party with appropriate This Court finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that the rejection of the application has resulted in failure to consider documents crucial for adjudication of the real controversy. The documents are not voluminous, nor ejudice the defendants in any manner which cannot be compensated in terms of costs. On the contrary, their exclusion would prevent the Court from rendering a complete and just decision. discussion, the impugned order dated cannot be sustained. The documents sought to be produced as additional evidence, being official records, go to the root of the matter and their consideration is essential for effective adjudication. Accordingly, the application dated 07.07.205 is hereby set aside. The application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiffs is allowed, subject to to be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High trial Court shall grant two effective opportunities to the plaintiffs to produce the additional documents and to examine - some directly pertaining to Khasra No.143, which is the very subject matter of the suit. The documents are material for determining the title and possession of the property. The settled legal position is that additional evidence may be permitted where it is necessary for just decision of the case, even if due diligence was not shown earlier, subject to compensating the opposite party with appropriate This Court finds merit in the submission of the petitioner that the rejection of the application has resulted in failure to consider documents crucial for adjudication of the real controversy. The documents are not voluminous, nor ejudice the defendants in any manner which cannot be compensated in terms of costs. On the contrary, their exclusion would prevent the r dated cannot be sustained. The documents sought to be produced as additional evidence, being official records, go to the root of the matter and their consideration is essential for effective adjudication. Accordingly, the application is hereby set aside. The application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiffs is allowed, subject to ana High trial Court shall grant two effective opportunities to the plaintiffs to produce the additional documents and to examine TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-5894-2025 (O&M) the concerned official witnesses. Thereafter, the defendants shall be afforded opportunity to rebut the additional evidence. 14. With these observations and directions, the civil revision petition is allowed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 12, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) the concerned official witnesses. Thereafter, the defendants shall be afforded nity to rebut the additional evidence. With these observations and directions, the civil revision petition is Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. , 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- the concerned official witnesses. Thereafter, the defendants shall be afforded With these observations and directions, the civil revision petition is Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE - the concerned official witnesses. Thereafter, the defendants shall be afforded With these observations and directions, the civil revision petition is TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.13 08:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document