CIVIL APPEAL 12478 of 2010 on 20 December 2012

1. Copy of the statement dated 6.6.2006.

2. Copy of the jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 of villageBhattiBhatti

3. Copy of the driving licence of Bikramjit Singh son ofJasbir Singh/plaintiffJasbir Singh/plaintiff

4. Copy of the passport of Bikramjit Singh son of theplaintiffplaintiff

5. Registration certificate of the vehicle

6. Ration card

7. Voter card of Paramjit Kaur

8. Driving licence of Atinderjit Singh

9. Copy of the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

10. Copy of order dated 29.8.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti.

11. Copy of order dated 27.11.2012 passed by theCommissionerCommissioner

12. Copy of the FIR dated 24.6.1992

13. Complaint filed by the son of Bikramjit Singh againstTarjit Kaur and the summoning order passed in the saidcomplaint dated 13.11.2007.Tarjit Kaur and the summoning order passed in the saidcomplaint dated 13.11.2007.

14. Will executed by Jagjit Singh

15. Orders passed in CWP 12478 of 2010 titled Jagjit SinghVs. Financial Commissioner dated 7.1.2011 and someother orders.Vs. Financial Commissioner dated 7.1.2011 and someother orders.

The petitioner has also challenged the said order returning thedocuments on the ground that, vide impugned order, the trial court did notdisclose the reasons for returning the said documents. However, it appearsthat some of the documents were returned for want of mode of proof or theirrelevancy to the issues, but the order appears to be perverse and nonspeaking.

The record reveals that the trial court gave very short time to CR No. 7823 of 2012

the petitioner for leading evidence in rebuttal making him handicapped tosummon the witnesses to prove these documents. Since there are five issuesthe onus of which was on the defendants and they had led evidence overthese issues as such the court should have given reasonable opportunity tothe petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. Since only one day was given tohim, he tendered these documents without looking to their admissibility,relevancy and mode of proof. It was practically impossible for him toconclude his evidence in rebuttal within one day.

Learned counsel has stated that immediately after the case wasadjourned from 18.12.2012 to 20.12.2012, the petitioner had tenderedaforesaid documents on 19.12.2012 alongwith diet money to prove thesedocuments. He has further stated that if some reasonable time is given tohim, he will prove all the documents, which are required to be proved onrecord and would also withhold such documents which are not relevant tobe produced in rebuttal on the issues.

Arguments

In the given circumstances of the case, this Court deem itappropriate to impart complete justice to the petitioner that some reasonabletime be given to the plaintiff to conclude his evidence. Though the case wasmature for arguments, yet the rights of the petitioner cannot be scuttled andmeritorious claims cannot be thrown in the dustbin by shutting his mouthson the ground that the case was a part of the action plan. When the partyhad reasonable cause to lead certain evidence for which he had a legitimateright.

Resultantly, this petition is accepted, the impugned orders areset aside and the petitioner is directed to conclude his evidence within onemonth. He would be at liberty to lead evidence relevant to the issues and CR No. 7823 of 2012

tender documents, subject to the admissibility and mode of proof. As such,the order passed by the trial court returning those documents would notcome in the way of the petitioner at the time of proving the same.

December 21, 2012prem

(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE