Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 15.09.2011 Karambir .... Petitioner Versus Ravinder and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. C.M.No.22502-CII of 2011 Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2011 This is a petition brought by the plaintiff under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi whereby the application for additional evidence for examination of Dr. Chirag Gupta, has been dismissed. A suit was brought by Karambir Singh, plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages. After the plaintiff closed his evidence, the defendants led their evidence and at Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2011 --2-- the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments, the plaintiff filed an application for additional evidence, which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi, vide order dated 25.08.2011. I have heard Mr. Shalender Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of Dr. Chirag Gupta was mentioned in the list of witnesses, summoned by the petitioner, when he was leading his evidence in affirmative. According to him, there had been two brothers practicing as advocates and his case was with them. According to him, on account of some mistake, the evidence was closed by one brother taking that Dr. Chirag Gupta has already been examined. He seeks only one opportunity to examine the said witness. It was known to the petitioner as well as his counsel(s) that Dr. Chirag Gupta was to be examined. Nothing has come in the application for additional evidence or even in the grounds in the revision petition that Dr. Chirag Gupta was not examined on account of misconception on the part of the advocate closing the evidence that the other brother had examined him. Thereafter, the defendants led their evidence and it is only at the time of rebuttal evidence and arguments, that the application has been made. In the absence of a plea that the reason for non- examination is a misconception arising in the mind of one brother advocate that the other brother advocate has examined the witness, the Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2011 --3-- application for additional evidence can only be termed as an attempt to fill up a lacuna left in the case of the plaintiff. The requirements of proof that the evidence now sought to be led was not within the knowledge of the party applying for the same when it was leading its evidence or that it could not be led despite due diligence is missing in this case. Consequently I find no patent illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.09.2011 dinesh