IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 800 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: April 07, 2011 Mewa Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Deep Chand and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Karan Jund, Advocate for Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Himanshu Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.9.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panipat, declining the application for additional evidence. Learned counsel wanted to produce the following documents by way of additional evidence. 1. Copy of the mutation No.847; 2. Copy of the jamabandi for the years 1977-78, 1987-88, 1992- 93; 3. Nehri girdawaries for the period Rabi 2005 onwards; and 4. copy of the statement of Amia who has died. To close the evidence in affirmative and to bring some evidence on record by way of additional evidence are two different remedies, having different intent and scope. The considerations for permission to lead additional evidence are different. The documentary evidence sought to be produced on record can neither be forged, fabricated or procured at any later stage. However, the diligence which the plaintiff could not exercise in leading the evidence may be compensated with costs. As regards the statement of Amia deceased, it may be observed that the petitioner has failed to show as to how her statement is relevant, therefore, it cannot be allowed to be proved by way of additional evidence Civil Revision No. 800 of 2010 -2- at this belated stage. However, the other evidence being a documentary in nature could be allowed subject to payment of costs. As such, this petition is partly accepted, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner would be at liberty to tender documents as referred to above except statement of Amia who is dead, subject to payment of `10,000/- as costs. April 07, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge