RAJESH OHLAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition filed under Article 227 (wrongly mentioned as 226) of the Constitution of India prays for setting aside the order dated 22.1.2014 (Annexure P/2) whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by the Addl. District Judge, Rohtak. Challenge has also been laid to the order dated 11.8.2014 (Annexure P/5) wherein application for additional evidence has been declined on the ground that evidence of the petitioner stood closed and thereafter the evidence of the respondents had also been closed and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. The evidence which was sought to be produced did not come strictly within the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC.

(2.) The trial Court placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Bhim Raj and others Vs. Jai Bhagwan and others, 2000 125 PunLR 208 to come to the said conclusion.

(3.) The dispute herein pertains to the acquisition of land by the respondent-State. The petitioner filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of the market value and proceedings have arisen therefrom. It is the case of the petitioner that the concerned Clerk of the office of Director, Town and Country Planning, Chandigarh had been summoned along with record pertaining to licence No.9 of 2009 and licence3 No.65 of 2010 along with schedule of land and area and copy of approved lay out plan Shijra of Sector 36-A, Rohtak. The said official brought the copy of the licence No.65 but the layout plan/site plan/shijra of said land/Sector 36-A, Rohtak was not brought and the same could not be exhibited on 22.1.2014 and the trial Court had closed the evidence on that date on the ground that sufficient opportunities have been given. On realising the mistake, application was filed for additional evidence on 23.7.2014 which has been dismissed as noticed above.