(C.M. No, 487 C- 2009) Documents being sought to be produced n record are not part of the file of learned trial Court, therefore, same cannot be allowed while exercising powers under Section 151 CPC. This application is accordingly dismissed.
MAIN CASE
2. With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties this se is being treated as a "Pacca"
Case.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed a declaratory suit against respondent claiming to be owner in possession of the property detailed in the plaint and also submitted that 30/35 years before the institution of the suit their property was included by the respondent in a Housing Scheme and 12 plots were carved out. Petitioners are in possession of all those plots and those plots also include some of the area of respondent. It was pleaded that petitioners are ready to make payment with regard to excess land in their possession. Respondent was proceeded against exparte. Petitioners led their exparte evidence. After considering the same, learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 26.5.2005 dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners, which was allowed on 26.9.2005 and the case was remanded, allowing the petitioners to lead further evidence in support of their case. Six opportunities were given to petitioners for leading their evidence and ultimately on 12.10.2006 by applying Order XVII, Rule 3 CPC right of the Petitioners to lead evidence was closed and suit was dismissed. It was challenged through an appeal, which also stands dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 22.5.2007.
2. It is contended that petitioners had inadvertently noted the date as 27.10.2006, which actually was 12.10.2006. In support of his this contention he had placed on record a Diary and affidavit of the learned counsel. Relies on 1968 SCM R 817.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
5. Order sheet of the learned trial Court indicates that from 8.10.2005 till 12.10.2006 i,e, over a period of about one year six adjournments on the request of the petitioners were granted to them but they failed to adduce their evidence in support of their case. Judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case is not relevant, inasmuch as, it relates to restoration of certain proceedings, while in the instant case law applicable would be 2004 SCM R 964, according to which Court proceedings are to be given preference over an affidavit filed by a learned counsel. In this view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.