Civil Revision No. 784 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 784 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.2.2009 Shiv Ram ...Petitioner Versus Gokal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. The trial of the suit (instituted on 27.1.2004) began on 20.9.2005. The plaintiff-petitioner could not examine even a single witness till 21.2.2007. Ultimately, the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was closed on 30.4.2007 “after tendering two marked documents”. It was thereafter that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a plea for additional evidence for being allowed to place on record the copy of statement, receipt of Chulah Tax and some other documents. The plea, in the context, was that these documents could not be produced before the Trial Court at an earlier point of time on account of “over sightedness.” Learned Trial declined the plea by observing that the allowance of the application would amount to conducting a devnovo trial which was not permissible because the matter is already fixed for rebuttal evidence. It is not the plea on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that there is any factual incorrect averment made in the course of the impugned order. In that view of things, it is apparent that the plaintiff-petitioner had been grossly negligent in the conduct of the proceedings and he has not been Civil Revision No. 784 of 2009 -2- **** able to show to this court that the existence of those documents was not to his notice at an earlier point of time or that he had any other handicap whatsoever on account of which he could not lay hands upon these documents. As already noticed the evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be closed by the Court and that order was challenged till date and has thereby attained finality. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition is denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. February 12, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge