ASHOK KUMAR Vs. LUXMI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.03.2013 (Annexure P- 6) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kurukshetra whereby the application for leading additional evidence moved by petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against respondents. On pleadings of parties, issues were framed by the trial Court and the case was fixed for leading petitioner's evidence. The petitioner while appearing as PW tendered the certified copies of entries made in assessment register for the year 1993-94, 1998-99, 2005-06 which were even admitted by the respondents in the written statements, but were objected by them and were marked on the court file, although the same should have been exhibited being the public documents and admitted by the respondents. The petitioner impleaded Municipal Committee as defendant no.6 in suit, however, it was proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance. Since the documents i.e. assessment made by the Municipal Committee for the year 1993-94, 1998-99 and 2005-06 were not exhibited and were only marked, therefore, the petitioner moved an application for leading additional evidence which was dismissed by trial court vide impugned order dated 06.03.2013. Hence, this petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court, at any stage, permit the parties to lead additional evidence, if it is found that the documents sought to be produced by additional evidence could not be produced despite due diligence. The learned counsel further contended that the assessments made by the Municipal Committee are the public documents and per se admissible and thus marking of admitted documents instead of exhibiting is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel further contended that the leading of additional evidence by the petitioner will not prejudice the rights of the respondents, rather the matter will be adjudicated properly.