SMT. CHANDRO AND ANR. Vs. RAVIDATT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner have challenged the order of Sub Judge 3rd Class, Hissar, dated April 6, 1978, whereby the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed and they were even not allowed to tender in evidence certified copies of the public record.

(2.) So far as their first request is concerned, the petitioner wanted to summon the patwari Halqa Khedar. On the earlier date, the petitioners were given the last opportunity to summon the patwari who instead of giving process fee and address of patwari Halqa Khedar, gave the address of patwari Halqa Balsmand, who was served and discharged and the trial court refused them another opportunity to summon the patwari Halqa Khedar. Apart from the fact that this is a discretionary order and no irregularity or illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction by the trial Court in passing this order has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I repeatedly asked the learned counsel to tell me as to what was the statement which the patwari was required to make but the learned counsel was unable to say anything. The only argument advanced by him was that there may be some documents which the petitioners would like to prove to the petition. This is wholly a vague argument. So far as the documents mentioned in the impugned order are concerned, they are all certified copies of the public record and are admissible per se and the patwari is not required to prove any one of them. The first request of the petitioner was, therefore, rightly rejected by the trial Court.

(3.) As regards the second request, the trial Court acted illegally in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to tender the documents in evidence whose authenticity was not doubtful and which were certified copies of the public record. As held in Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh and another v. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishan, 1969 AIR(P&H) 197, the trial court should not shut the relevant evidence howsoever negligent or careless the party may have been in not producing it at the proper time as the other party in such situation can always be compensated with costs. In the present case, the defendants are yet to start their evidence and, they, therefore, are not likely to be prejudiced in any manner.