DEVI SINGH Vs. SMT. SILA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.02.2013, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon, whereby application moved by the petitioner for exhibiting already tendered documents and for producing some other documents has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. He submits that trial court has not appreciated the controversy in right perspective. Petitioner merely wants to exhibit already tendered documents. The impugned order is, thus, unsustainable. Same deserves to be set -aside.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has, however, opposed the plea. He submits that application is in the nature of additional evidence. Same cannot be allowed at this stage. He asserts that evidence of the defendant/petitioner was closed by order on 7.6.2005 and said order has attained finality. Thus, present application is misconceived. He has placed reliance upon judgment reported as Chand Singh Vs. Naranjan Singh and another,, 1990 (1) SLJ 292.

(3.) IT appears that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that she alongwith proforma defendants, was owner in possession of land as described in plaint and will dated 10.3.1975 executed in the name of Sona Devi and mutation on the basis of same were null and void. Suit was instituted in the year 1999. Issues were framed in the year 2001. Plaintiff concluded her evidence on 2.1.2004. Thereafter, defendants were given opportunity to lead their evidence. At that stage, they moved an application for leading secondary evidence to prove the will dated 10.3.1975. This application was dismissed by the trial court. However, in revision preferred before this court one opportunity was granted to defendant to lead secondary evidence subject to payment of costs. Evidence of defendant was closed by order on 7.6.2005. Instant application has been moved for exhibiting certain documents which are stated to be on the file. Prayer has been rejected by the court below observing that allowing such an application would tantamount to reviewing order dated 7.6.2005 whereby evidence of petitioner was closed by order. I find no legal infirmity with the impugned order. It appears, petitioner is merely trying to delay culmination of proceedings which were instituted in the year 1999. In Chand Singh's case (supra) this court held as follows: - -