RAME Vs. DHANPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The litigating parties are the successors of Birju and Behu, who had in earlier round of litigation gone up to the Apex Court in a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. Now, Appellants in this round of litigation have sought possession of the suit property, i.e., 4 Bighas and 12 Biswas of agricultural land in Khasra No.42/8, in Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi. At the stage of evidence of Respondents/Defendants, Appellants/Plaintiffs had sought to place on record certified copy of order of April 24, 1972, passed by the Assistant Collector (Revenue), holding that Birju, the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs, did not possess the suit land and that the possession of the suit land was kept as before in the Revenue Records. It is not in dispute that copy of the aforesaid order is already on record. Another document sought to be placed on record by the Appellants/Plaintiffs is certified copy of order of September 08, 2000, passed in R.S.A. No.181/1981, i.e., of the earlier litigation. Appellants/Plaintiffs had also sought permission to lead the evidence to prove these two documents, which has been declined by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order of July 06, 2009.

(2.) Notice of this appeal was confined to the question of taking on record the certified copy of the order of September 08, 2000 in R.S.A. No. 181/1981 and certified copy of order of April 24, 1972 of Assistant Collector (hereinafter referred to as order the Revenue Officer).

(3.) Though, there is no opposition from the side of the Respondents to take on record certified copy of the order of September 08, 2000 of this court in earlier round of litigation, i.e., in R.S.A. No. 181/1981, but the prayer of the Appellants to take on record a certified copy of the order of the Revenue Officer of April 24, 1972, is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the Respondents.