Inderjit Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS Sardari Lal and others have filed this revision petition against Sikandar Lal and Santosh respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application of the petitioner for placing on record original documents in place of the documents which have already been produced in notarized form, has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued and respondents appeared through their counsel and contested the petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that Sardari Lal and other plaintiffs have filed a suit against Sikandar Lal and Santosh defendants for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand -over the vacant possession of the property/house to the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit property and further from selling/alienating the same.
(3.) A perusal of the record shows that an application was filed by the plaintiff -Sardari Lal to produce on record original documents in place of documents produced in notarized form. As per the averments in the application, it is stated that during the evidence of the plaintiff, he has presented documents Ex.P2 onwards but the same were not original and now the plaintiff wants to produce these documents in the Court file by producing the original one. In the reply to this application, defendants submitted that application is not supported by an affidavit and original documents cannot be placed on Court file. It is also stated that when the statements have been concluded, application should be dismissed. They also objected it on the ground of late production of the documents without giving any reason. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide impugned order dated 30.05.2013 dismissed this application.;