KISHAN CHAND SINDHI Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants-petitioners appear to have filed an application before the trial court in a suit filed against them for declaration of title to certain immovable property on the basis of certain sale- deed which the plaintiffs-respondents claimed was executed in their favour by mortgagor of that property who had earlier mortgaged it to the defendants-respondents. While one of the witnesses of the plaintiffs was examined before the trial court, the defendants-petitioners herein filed an application that the document which is the sale deed, relied upon by the plaintiffs' witness should be directed to be produced in the court below alongwith the map, but the said application has been rejected by the trial court assigning cogent reasons therein.

(2.) HAVING perused them as also after hearing the counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the defendants-petitioners are seeking to contest the case of the plaintiffs-respondents by challenging the genuineness of the sale deed since the map of the disputed area is not attached with it but at the same time they want the witness to produce that document. If the defendants want to prove their defence case as per their written statement they will have to stand on their own legs and cannot be permitted to prove their case by seeking a direction from the court to the witness to produce the evidence so that adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiffs and the defendants can be in a position to take advantage out of it. It is no doubt true that at the time of final arguments, the defendants will be at liberty to take advantage of a lacuna in the plaintiff's case either on the plea of infirmity or lacuna in the evidence adduced, but that does not mean that he can be permitted to go to the extent of seeking a direction from the court to the plaintiffs' witness to produce the evidence so that he can extract an advantage out of it for the defendant is legally bound to prove his part of the case himself by oral or documentary evidence on which he relies. As already stated, if the plaintiffs have not produced any document in its entirety, it will definitely be open for the defendants to challenge it at the time of final argument by taking advantage out of that but he cannot be permitted to take advantage against the plaintiff to the extent of seeking a direction to the witness to produce the entire evidence which will suit the defendant-petitioners' case. For these reasons, as also for the reasons assigned in the order of the trial court. I do not deem it appropriate to entertain this revision petition and hence it stands dismissed. Revision dismissed.