RAJINDER SINGH Vs. RUSTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the plaintiff was leading his evidence and were in attendance coming from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector for recording of their oral evidence, a certified copy of sale deed voucher reflecting payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was produced which was an incomplete document. Besides, Form No. 2 from the custody of the Land Acquisition Collector's office disclosed that Rustam son of Om Singh son of Nihal Singh with whom plaintiff had entered into an exchange deed, had received compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for the same land then because of an incomplete copy of the document produced by the witness of the Government, his case ought not to have been prejudiced. The petitioner made an application before the trial Judge for production of the complete document but the application has been dis -allowed for the reason that the stage of the suit is at the fag end and recalling the witness for exhibiting the aforesaid two documents will amount to re -opening the case permitting the petitioner to fill up lacunas is impermissible. The learned trial Court appears not to have applied its mind judicially to the issue. If the complete text of the record is allowed to be brought on record, it will not involve leading any further oral documentary evidence since the documents, apart from being public record of which judicial notice can be taken, heavens will not fall and the interests of justice would be served. Of what effect they have on the merits of the case is quite another matter but it is an another thing to block its entry for the reason that the document has been sought to be produced as additional evidence after the closing of the defence evidence and posting the case for rebuttal, if any.

(2.) TO permit Government record to be taken on record even at this stage would cause no prejudice to the respondent and, therefore, I find no necessity to issue notice to the respondent only to hear them of a right which has been amply demonstrated by the petitioner for admittance on the record of the trial Court of the documents in their full text. They deserve to be placed on record so that the judicial record is not left impure. It was the duty of the Government to produce full text of the documents and not in part. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.03.2014 is hereby set aside. The trial Court would summon the witness from the Land Acquisition Collector's Office together with the complete record of the two documents for recording evidence sans cross examination. Since the witness from Land Acquisition Collector's office will be appearing as a formal witness, as I am given to understand, the opposite party would not be allowed to cross examine the official witness while appearing as a formal witness to produce record, in view of Section 139 of the Evidence Act, which reads: