Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1760 (PNJ)

Paramjit Kaur v. Haryana Wakf Board

2022-09-20

HARKESH MANUJA

body2022
JUDGMENT Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral) - Present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, exercising the power of Wakf Tribunal, whereby, an application for seeking permission to lead additional evidence, filed at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs, has been dismissed. 2. In the present case, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit property. They also sought declaration qua notices having been served upon them by the respondent-Board, regarding eviction. The suit was filed in the year 2012, thereafter, the issues were framed and the matter was fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioners, which was concluded somewhere in the year 2015. While the matter was listed for rebuttal and arguments, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs, seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of revenue record so as to support their plea qua title over the suit property and to rebut the ownership of the respondent-Wakf Board. It is the said application, which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal primarily on account of delay and also for want of due diligence on the part of petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revenue record sought to be produced by way of additional evidence goes to the root of the matter as the same would help the court to adjudicate upon the controversy involved therein, which revolves around the ownership/title of the suit property. He further submits that despite due diligence as the petitioners could not produce the aforesaid revenue record, as the factum of cutting in the revenue record came to their notice only when a certified copy of jamabandi for the year 1989-90 was obtained by them. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the petitioners have been acting in a negligent manner and despite having knowledge about the revenue record, they did not make efforts to produce all these documents while their evidence was being recorded in affirmative. He further submits that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners while making the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper-book and gone through the records. He further submits that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners while making the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper-book and gone through the records. The dispute in the present case revolves around the title of the suit property. The revenue record in the shape of jamabandies and mutations pertaining to the suit land now sought to be adduced by way of additional evidence would help the Court to adjudicate upon the controversy involved herein in a complete and effective manner. It may be pointed here that the revenue record now sought to be produced is mostly free from suspicion, though it may carry rebuttable presumption. The jamabandies including records of right (mutations) are public documents being admissible without much formal proof. 6. Though, there has been some delay on the part of petitioners, in production of revenue records and also they may not have pursued their litigation with reasonable diligence, still in order to avoid prejudice to their rights, in the facts and circumstances of this case, hypertechnical and narrow approach needs to be avoided. Be that as it may, considering the nature of proceeding, it is felt that the strict rules of procedure have to pave way for substantial justice. In sum and substance, I am of the view that the petitioners are required to be permitted to lead additional evidence as prayed for by them in in their application. 7. More than that, the matter is still at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, therefore, respondents No.1 and 2 have adequate opportunity to rebut the evidence now sought to be adduced by the petitioners, in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set aside. However, in order to balance the equities, the petitioners are burdened with costs of Rs.10,000/- as condition precedent, to be paid to respondent No.1, on the date fixed. 9. Needless to say that anything said hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the instant revision petition and the same shall have no effect on the merits of the case.