Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR NO.5895 OF2013(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 27TH SEPTEMBER2013R.P.Yadav ….
Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ….
Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL **** Present : Mr.Aman Priye Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** L.N.MITTAL, J.
(ORAL) Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 07.09.2013 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the trial Court thereby dismissing application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for producing some documents in rebuttal evidence.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the original documents are in possession of defendants/respondents who did not produce the same despite direction by the Court and the petitioner, who has photostat copies of the documents with him, wants to produce the same in rebuttal evidence and he should be permitted to do so.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention which cannot be accepted.
The documents sought to be produced in rebuttal CR No.5895 of 2013 (O&M) -2- evidence pertain to issues of affirmative, onus whereof was on the plaintiff.
Consequently, he could not be permitted to produce the documents in rebuttal evidence.
If the defendants had not produced original documents despite direction by the Court, the plaintiff could take appropriate steps in accordance with law at that stage.
Moreover, even now, the position remains the same.
The defendants have not produced the original documents even now.
The plaintiff wants to produce photostat copies of the documents which he could do even in affirmative evidence if so permissible in accordance with law.
On the other hand, the plaintiff failed to produce his entire evidence in affirmative and ultimately plaintiff’s evidence had to be closed by Court order.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, I find that the application filed by the plaintiff for producing the documents in rebuttal evidence has been rightly declined by the trial Court because the documents pertain to issues of affirmative, onus whereof was on the plaintiff.
There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Civil Miscellaneous No.19783-CII of 2013 for interim stay is disposed of as infructuous.
27th September, 2013 (L.N.MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE Raj Kumar 2013.09.30 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh