DILA RAM Vs. RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the petitioner, who has filed this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting -aside the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the learned trial court whereby the application preferred by him under order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for adducing additional evidence came to be rejected.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as well as for declaration to the effect that he has become exclusive owner by way of adverse possession of the land comprised in khewat No. 51, khatauni No. 151 and khasra No. 220 measuring 0 -00 -42 hectares on which he had constructed a building in the year 1986 and the land comprised in khewat No. 51, khatauni No. 179 -190 measuring 0 -00 -69 hectares on which partition of land a breast wall cemented stair case in the form of passage to the top floor had been constructed by the plaintiff in the year 1986. Consequential relief was also sought to the effect that the revenue officials be directed to carry out necessary correction in the revenue record. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was also prayed for by restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the land and from dispossessing.

(3.) BEFORE the matter could be heard, the petitioner preferred the impugned application, wherein it was alleged that the plaintiff had earlier produced a plan, which is Ex. PW 8/B and letter Ex. PW 8/A which had been proved by way of secondary evidence. The official from the municipal corporation had then deposed as AW 3 that the plan Ex. PW 8/B was not traceable. However, after the application of the application under section 65 of the Evidence Act for leading secondary evidence had been allowed, he had summoned the official from the municipal corporation, Shimla, who was examined as PW 8 and for the first time this official had stated that the file which was not traceable earlier was now available with the municipal corporation and he brought the said file on that date, which was evident from his statement recorded on 15.9.2012. It was further alleged that the petitioner had applied for the documents from the said file to be supplied by him but the official of the municipal corporation took undue long time in supplying the said documents, which were eventually supplied only on 24.7.2013 and the application thereafter moved had been without any undue delay.