Inderjit Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have filed this revision petition against respondents under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar, whereby the application filed by respondents/plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence has been allowed.
(2.) I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The copy of the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 has been placed on record as Annexure P -1. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellants/applicants challenged mutation No. 725 dated 18.11.1954 (Ex. P.26) which reveals that the same was sanctioned by the order of C.O. Hisar dated 18.11.1954. The plaintiffs applied for the copy of that order and statements of Hari Ram and Jawana Ram but they were informed that no such order and statements were found available with the revenue authorities. The plaintiffs want to prove this fact in additional evidence. Secondly, the plaintiffs want to place on record copy of jamabandi for the year 1928 -29, mutation No. 427 dated 28.07.1935, rapat No. 199 and 43 and jamabandi for the year 1940 -41. This application has been allowed by learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar.
(3.) FIRST of all, documents relating to revenue record are public documents and these cannot be doubted that these are fabricated by the plaintiffs. Otherwise also, the presumption of truth attaches to jamabandi and these are per se admissible documents. Furthermore, proof of fact that statements and order of C.O. Hisar are not available, in no way, will cause any prejudice to the present petitioners. Moreover, learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar has specifically stated that allowing the additional evidence, in no way, amounts to filling up of lacuna as the case was not dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs could not produce these documents. Further, it is also the finding by learned Addl. District Judge, Hisar that these documents are essential for just and proper decision of the case. The Court has also taken note of the delay and allowed this application subject to payment of Rs. 5000/ - as costs. In no way, the impugned order can be held against the law or illegal.;