RAM PAUL GOEL Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kurukshetra vide which application moved by the petitioner for leading secondary evidence to prove demarcation report has been ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent filed a suit for possession with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was claimed by the defendant petitioner that demarcation of the suit land was effected by Hari Chand Kanungo, Sadar Thanesar as Local Commissioner, on 15.8.1989 and the report of the said date was prepared. It was claimed that the original file of demarcation report was not traceable in the record of V.R.K. Branch, Kurukshetra or in the office of Tehsildar Thanesar or in the office of Sadar Kanungo Thanesar.

(3.) THE application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent and it was claimed that earlier also defendant filed an application for leading secondary evidence, which was dismissed. It was also claimed that present application was not competent as vide order dated 4.4.2006 last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence on 20.4.2006. The defendant petitioner led evidence on 20.4.2006 but did not close the evidence. The objection was also raised with regard to leading additional evidence to prove the photo copy in violation of Section 63 of Eviction Act. It was claimed that photo copy has been tampered with by the defendant with pen, which was admitted by Sadar Kanungo in his statement on oath before the Court.