Pooja and Others vs Jagdish Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 4884. CII of 2012

This is application for impleading legal representatives of Mohinder Singh defendant no. 1 since deceased. It is alleged that petitioners, who are plaintiffs in the trial court, being daughters of defendant no. 1 since deceased, are his only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the petitioners as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of their father Mohinder Singh defendant no. 1 since deceased for the purpose of this revision petition.

CR No. 1151 of 2012

In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffs, challenge is to order dated 11.1.2012 Annexure P/2 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application filed by the plaintiffs for additional evidence.

The petitioners have already produced copy of pedigree table mark PA in the trial court. By additional evidence, the plaintiffs want to examine Patwari as witness to prove the said pedigree table. The application for additional evidence has been dismissed by the trial court on the ground that evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by court order dated 18.11.2008 and the application for additional evidence was filed after 3 years on 21.12.2011 at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that pedigree table which is already on the record is required to be formally proved by summoning Patwari as witness.

However, counsel for respondent (defendant no. 2) contended that the application has been rightly dismissed by the trial court on the ground mentioned hereinbefore.

I have carefully considered the matter.

Pedigree table in the record of the Patwari is public document. Consequently, its certified copy is per-se admissible in evidence and is not required to be formally proved. In these circumstances, if document mark PA is certified copy of the pedigree table, the same has to be admitted in evidence being per-se admissible. However, if the said document is not certified copy of the pedigree table, the plaintiffs should be permitted to produce certified copy of the pedigree table by way of additional evidence on payment of costs. The said document is not likely to be forged or fabricated. Its copy is already on the record. Consequently, there is no ground for not permitting the plaintiffs to produce the said document by way of additional evidence. Contesting defendant no. 2 can be compensated by costs. He shall also get opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal thereof. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/2 passed by the trial court is set aside. It is ordered that if the document mark PA is certified copy of the pedigree table, the same shall be admitted in evidence without any formal proof being per-se admissible in evidence as certified copy of public document. However, if document mark PA is not certified copy of the pedigree table, the plaintiffs shall be permitted to produce certified copy of the pedigree table by additional evidence on payment of Rs. 2500/- as costs precedent and in that event, respondent no. 2 shall also be entitled to get opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal thereof.