KEHAR SINGH DHULKU Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permission to bring additional documentary evidence on record in his suit for declaration and possession was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh on 29.2.2008. Aggrieved of the same, he is before this Court by way of revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In his suit, the plaintiff sought declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No.1-respondent in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 and registered on 21.7.1985 was null and void, and, therefore, the said defendants had no right, title or interest in the property so sold. He also prayed for possession of the said property which was a house. While the suit was pending, the plaintiff filed an application stating therein that he had obtained some documentary evidence through the Central Public Information Officer, Estate Office, U.T., Chandigarh from the noting of RPD 157758 pertaining to Kothi No. 1551, Sector 36-D, Chandigarh. These documents were kept confidential and could not be obtained earlier. These documents clearly establish that the aforementioned plot was purchased by the plaintiff on 8.7.1976. The plaintiff also attached the list of 22 documents with his application and prayed that they be allowed to be put on record by way of additional evidence.

(3.) The defendants had opposed the application by stating that the plaintiff already knew about all the documents mentioned in the index of the application not only prior to the filing of the suit but even while leading his evidence. His evidence already stood closed on 17.9.2007 and, therefore, the application was not maintainable and filed with the sole purpose of prolonging the litigation. It was also stated that the documents sought to be brought on record do not pertain to the present suit, rather they concerned other litigation between the parties. The disputed property was never purchased by the plaintiff on 8.7.1976 as alleged.