RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridkot on 12.10.2012 declining the application in which a prayer had been made for directing the defendant Sukhjit Singh to produce the original sale deed dated 5.7.2012 vide which the latter had purchased the agricultural land measuring 2K -5M out of Khasra No. 814 min (12 -7), 815/(13 -13) situate in the revenue estate of village Pindi Balochan or in the alternative, the plaintiff -petitioner be permitted to prove the sale deed by way of secondary evidence. The application has been moved in the pending suit for declaration to the effect that Gram Panchayat, Pindi Balochan is the owner of land measuring 30K - 7M comprised in Khata No.600, Khatanu No.947, Khasra No.71/15 -11 and 72/14 -16 in the aforesaid village as per Jamabandi for the year 2005 -06. In this suit, a declaration was also being sought that the decree dated 8.12.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.99 of 8.5.2007 titled Sukhjit Singh v. Gram and 2nd defendants against the 3rd defendant in a collusive decree and that a fraud was committed with the help of the Ex -Sarpanch who is arrayed as respondent No.3 Darshan Singh served but not represented before this Court in the present proceedings.
(2.) THE trial court has declined the prayer stating that the sale deed dated 5.7.2012 has been executed during the pendency of the suit from which this revision arises and there is no pleading to this effect in the suit. Another reason given for declining the request that in the application, it has not been mentioned for what purpose, the plaintiff was to produce the sale deed on record. The plaintiff is the master of his case and all lawful means available to it are open to be adduced in support of his claim for a decree. A registered sale deed is a public document, the secondary evidence of which lies in the office of the Sub Registrar of the district. The suit is at interim stage and the trial court was not called upon to opine as to the effect of the sale deed on the ultimate decision that it may take in the suit. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) I asked the learned counsel for the respondents as to why he should not assist the Court in furnishing the original copy of the sale deed dated 5.7.2012 before the trial court for it to match the same with the copy of the sale deed available on the revenue record, if the respondents resist the original being placed on the judicial file. He submits that he is not under bounden duty to produce the original sale deed and therefore resist taking steps to place the same on the record of the trial court.;