C.R. No. 2437 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2437 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 9.4.2010 Smt. Gajana Devi .......... Petitioner Versus Umrao Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.), Narnaul, vide which application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence, to produce on record, the birth certificate and identity card, issued by the competent authority, in support of the contention that the petitioner was minor at the time of execution of the sale deed, stands dismissed. The application was contested, on the plea that the application has been moved for filling up lacuna. Though, under normal circumstances this application deserved to be allowed, as the evidence to be led by the petitioner, is material evidence for adjudication of the dispute between the parties, but the learned trial Court has rejected the application, in view of the fact, that the evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be closed by penal order, in not leading evidence in spite of availing number of C.R. No. 2437 of 2010 2 opportunities. The learned trial Court held, that the petitioner could not be allowed to lead additional evidence in view of the closure of evidence, by order. The party cannot be allowed to bypass an order, by resorting to additional evidence, as this evidence was well within the knowledge of the petitioner, and in fact was the basis in filing of the suit. This shows that the petitioner was negligent in leading evidence. This Court could have exercised power under section 151 of the Code only incase the evidence sought to be led would have come to the knowledge of the petitioner after closing of evidence. The order impugned, being in consonance with the settled law, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. 9.4.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE