A.N.JINDAL, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that there are issues No. 5 to 9, framed by the trial court, the onus of which is upon the defendants and the petitioner had a right to lead evidence in rebuttal and he was also provided opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal but for a negligible time. He has urged that the defendants' evidence was closed on 18.12.2012 and the case was adjourned for 20.12.2012 for rebuttal evidence. On that day, his evidence in rebuttal was closed without passing any specific order. However, the Court while passing the order dated 20.12.2012, returned the documents as tendered by him by way of affidavit of Jasbir Singh by way of examination -in -chief. The documents which he had produced in the statement of Jasbir Singh are as under: - 1. Copy of the statement dated 6.6.2006. 2. Copy of the jamabandi for the year 2008 -2009 of village Bhatti 3. Copy of the driving licence of Bikramjit Singh son of Jasbir Singh/plaintiff 4. Copy of the passport of Bikramjit Singh son of the plaintiff 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 the Commissioner 12. Copy of the FIR dated 24.6.1992 13. Complaint filed by the son of Bikramjit Singh against Tarjit Kaur and the summoning order passed in the said complaint dated 13.11.2007. 14. Will executed by Jagjit Singh 15. Orders passed in CWP 12478 of 2010 titled Jagjit Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner dated 7.1.2011 and some other orders.
(2.) THE petitioner has also challenged the said order returning the documents on the ground that, vide impugned order, the trial court did not disclose the reasons for returning the said documents. However, it appears that some of the documents were returned for want of mode of proof or their relevancy to the issues, but the order appears to be perverse and non speaking. The record reveals that the trial court gave very short time to the petitioner for leading evidence in rebuttal making him handicapped to summon the witnesses to prove these documents. Since there are five issues the onus of which was on the defendants and they had led evidence over these issues as such the court should have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. Since only one day was given to him, he tendered these documents without looking to their admissibility, relevancy and mode of proof. It was practically impossible for him to conclude his evidence in rebuttal within one day.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has stated that immediately after the case was adjourned from 18.12.2012 to 20.12.2012, the petitioner had tendered aforesaid documents on 19.12.2012 alongwith diet money to prove these documents. He has further stated that if some reasonable time is given to him, he will prove all the documents, which are required to be proved on record and would also withhold such documents which are not relevant to be produced in rebuttal on the issues.;