RATANI DEVI Vs. HARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has questioned the order dated 19.2.2010 by which his prayer for examining a revenue official for the purpose of proving the demarcation report has been declined.

(2.) In the proceedings before the learned trial court a demarcation report had been exhibited as Ex.P-4, however, the same was not proved in accordance with law as the revenue official who had conducted the demarcation had not been examined. The evidence of the petitioner has been concluded and now by virtue of that application he wants to examine the revenue official as a part of rebuttal evidence.

(3.) I am afraid the contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the order cannot be accepted. He has stated that no prejudice will be caused to the other side in the event of the petition being accepted. In the considered opinion of this court the petitioner was required to lead evidence in the affirmative but failed to examine the revenue official in support of the exhibited document leading to its probable fallibility in the final analysis. However, it has been stated before this Court that no objection was raised to the document when it was exhibited. This is a matter to be seen by the learned trial court at the time of examining the evidence by keeping in view the settled position of law and considering the impact of such a document when it has not been objected to.