CMPMO/389/2012 on 28 December 2012

1. Maharaj Singh

2. Ram Narain Singh

3. Shiv Narain Singh

All sons of Kr. Partap Singh, S/o Shri Sumitra Chand.

4. Sanjeev Kumar

5. Rajiv Kumar

Sons of Sher Bhadur Singh, S/o Rai Sumitra Chand.

6. Meena Kumari wife of

7. Rohit Kanwar

8. Harash Wardan

S/o Yadwinder Singh, S/o Sher Singh.

9. Bhupinder Singh, S/o Sher Bahadur Caste Rajput, R/o Village Bangarh, Tehsil and District Una, H.P.

…..Petitioners/Plaintiffs.

Versus

1. Smt. Jatindera Kumari, W/o late Shri Jang Bahadur Singh, S/o Rai Sumitra Chand, R/o Village Bangarh, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. at present R/o H. No.518, Shivalik Avenue Phase-1, Naya Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar ( Punjab).

…..Respondent/Defendant.

2. Kr.Sher Bahadur

3. Kr. Partap Singh

Sons of Rai Sumitra Chand, R/o Village Bangarh, Tehsil and District Una, H.P.

4. Randeep Singh, S/o Jang Bahadur Singh, R/o House No.518 Shivalik Avenue,Phase-1, Naya Nangal Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar ( Punjab).

…..Proforma Defendants.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?No For the Petitioners : Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr.N.K.Thakur, Senior Advocate

with Mr.Surinder, Advocate, for

respondent No.1.

Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral).

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 04.12.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),Una, District Una, in Civil Misc. Application No.250-VI-12, rejecting the application of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 (1)(2)(3) read with Section 151 CPC for permission to prove mutation No.10 dated 02.02.1890, copy of jamabandi 1897-98, copy of jamabandi 1924-25 and proving khewat Nos. 2 to 9 in jamabandi 1977-78 Ex.PD. The application was opposed and the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that it has been moved at belated stage. In addition, oral and documentary evidence is already on record which is sufficient to adjudicate the lis.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in order to establish the case of the petitioners in the Court below, the proof of mutation No.10 dated 02.02.1890, copy of jamabandi 1897-98, copy of jamabandi 1924-25 and khewat Nos.2 to 9 in jamabandi 1977-78 Ex.PD is necessary. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the petition. No doubt, the suit in which the application has been moved by the ______________ Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes petitioners is very old filed by the petitioners in the year 2001, but due to one reason or the other the matter is still in the trial Court. It has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the suit was fixed for final arguments and after obtaining two adjournments, the present application was moved by the petitioners for proving the documents. The documents which petitioners now want to prove are coming from public record and these documents are not private documents.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside, the petitioners are permitted to prove mutation No.10 dated 02.02.1890, copy of jamabandi 1897-98, copy of jamabandi 1924-25 and khewat Nos.2 to 9 in jamabandi 1977-78 Ex.PD, which documents are perse admissible and only are to be formally exhibited, subject to cost of `1,500/- to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.1 herein in the Court below. It is made clear that only one opportunity will be given to the petitioners for doing the needful. It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that suit is already fixed on 31.12.2012, on that date the Court below shall permit the petitioners to exhibit the documents referred above. The petition is disposed of, so also the pending application.

Copy ‘dasti’.

( Kuldip Singh ),

Judge. December 28, 2012. (krt)