Civil Revision No. 1674 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1674 of 2009 Date of decision: 05.09.2009 Dhanak Panchayat Mohalla Modi Mill, Sunam ....Petitioner versus Faquir Chand ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the respondent. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated 15.1.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence, has been declined. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for redemption on the basis of agreement dated 7.1.2000. The case set up by the plaintiff/petitioner was, that notice of redemption was issued to the defendant/respondent, the details whereof were mentioned in para 8 of the plaint. The averments made in para 8 of the plaint were denied by the defendant/respondent The plaintiff led no evidence to prove service of notice. After the defendant led his evidence the petitioner availed opportunity of leading evidence in rebuttal. The petitioner tried to lead evidence qua service of notice in rebuttal, but his request was declined by the learned Court on 18.9.2008. The petitioner took no steps to challenge said Civil Revision No. 1674 of 2009 -2- impugned order, and allowed it to attain finality. When case was fixed for arguments, application for leading additional evidence was moved to lead evidence, which had been specifically declined by the Court on 18.9.2008 i.e. to prove notice. The learned trial Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to make out a case for leading additional evidence, as he neither pleaded, nor it could be said that the evidence sought to be led, by way of additional evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be found out with due diligence. In spite of the evidence being in knowledge of the petitioner, the additional evidence could only be allowed, in case, the evidence sought to be led is necessary for pronouncing the judgment by the Court. The petitioner is to fail, in this revision for the reason that once the relief for leading evidence was declined by the Court, and no steps were taken by the petitioner to challenge the order, he could not overcome, the order by resorting to additional evidence. The application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner was not competent. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 05, 2009 R.S.