BHIR SINGH Vs. RACHHPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned trial Court on 05.08.2010, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rules 3 & 6 for de-exhibiting the documents Exs.D-1 to D-22 and Exs. DA to DI, was dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff and defendant No.1, who is his brother, are owners in possession of tubewell connection installed in Khasra No.17R/28 situated at Village Kotli Moulvi, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak with consequential relief restraining the other defendants i.e. defendant Nos.2 to 4 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 or from shifting and disconnecting the tubewell connection.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in respect of the statement of SDO Prem Singh is factually incorrect and, therefore, the documents could not have been admitted in evidence. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a judgment of this Court reported as Raj Kumar Vs. Bawa Jai Gopal Singh 2006 (2) Civil Court Cases 654, wherein it has been held that the admissibility of the affidavit in evidence should be considered prior in time before admitting a document in evidence.