C.R.No.747 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.747 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.7.2011 Gurbaksh Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Anil Rishi ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samrath Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiff-petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 8.12.2008 (P.4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh whereby his application under Section 151 CPC for permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 26.3.1991 regarding H.No.86, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh registered in the office of Registrar Delhi is forged, fabricated and void ab initio. During the pendency of the suit, an application dated 5.4.2008 purpoted to have been filed under Section 151 CPC on behalf of plaintiff-petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence. The same was opposed by defendant-respondent by filing reply dated 4.6.2008. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the same vide order dated 8.12.008, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is wholly illegal and erroneous and C.R.No.747 of 2009 #2# as such not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has not at all taken into consideration the fact that the circumstances were so apparent that the application should have been allowed to render complete justice betweeen the parties and permitted the plaintiff-petitioner to bring on record the most relevant and valuable documents on record by way of additional evidence. At last, it is argued that in case the impugned order is not set aside, the plaintiff-petitioner shall suffer a great prejudice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned order is perfectly legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is further argued that the application for additional evidence has been filed just to prolong the matter unnecessarily as the plaintiff-petitioner was already having knowledge of the facts of the case and now he is trying to improve the same. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. Undisputedly, the suit was filed on 26.3.1994 and is pending for the last more than 17 years. The case is one of the oldest history sheeted case of District Court, Chandigarh in which issues were framed way back on 5.9.1997. Despite availing numerous opportunities, plaintiff did not conclude his evidence and ultimately the same was closed by court order on 7.10.2002. Thus, a period of five years was exhausted by the plaintiff- petitioner to led his evidence but still he is dissatisfied with the evidence brought on record on his behalf. C.R.No.747 of 2009 #3# On earlier occasions, plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 18 Rule 2 CPC for rebuttal evidence on 21.9.2007 but the same was withdrawn for the reasons best known to him. The arguments in the main case were heard by the learned trial Court in January 2008 and the matter was posted for order but at this stage the present application was filed. A perusal of application dated 5.4.2008 (P.2) reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner is trying to make out altogether a new case and fill up the lacuna as he was already having the knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case, thus, he ought to have produced the relevant evidence at the appropriate stage. No justifiable reason has been putforth by the petitioner worth consideration to interfere while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and to allow the application under Section 151 CPC for additional evidence at such a belated stage, when the entire case is over. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that in case the present application is accepted and witnesses are allowed to be examined, it will prolong the pleadings, which have already been delayed considerably. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 8.12.2008 (P.4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. July 18, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE