IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.166/2009(O&M) Date of Decision:31.3.2009. Ganpat ..........Petitioner. Versus Sardara Singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner-defendant no.2 has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rewari, dismissing his application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for additional evidence . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book consisting of copy of the plaint, written statement, application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, reply thereto as well as the impugned order. From a perusal of the above, it is apparent that in the year 2001, respondent no.1 Sardara Singh-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and injunction against the petitioner as well as proforma respondents 2 and 3 inter alia alleging that despite his being owner in possession of the suit property, CR NO.166/2009(O&M) 2 the petitioner as well as proforma respondents had encroached upon an area shown with red colour in the site plant attached with the plaint mark DEFG and also raised construction over it. Petitioner filed written statement denying the averments contained in the plaint. It was categorically stated in the written statement that defendant no.2-petitioner herein had been given ½ share of khasra no.87 and that his sons constructed their house on khasra no.88 and ½ share of khasra no.87, about 30 years back and the petitioner was even having an electric connection in his name in respect of the said house. On the pleading of the parties, issues were framed. Plaintiffs closed their evidence. Thereafter petitioner-defendants availed as many as eight opportunities to lead their evidence and ultimately vide order dated 30.7.2008, their evidence was closed by Court order, which order was never challenged. After a lapse of about five months of closing of defence evidence i.e. from 30.7.2008 to 12.12.2008, the defendant-petitioner moved the application dated 12.12.2008 Under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, which came to be dismissed vide order impugned in this revision petition. From the aforesaid facts, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. As already stated above, the suit was instituted in the year 2001. Nearly eight years have already expired. Both sides have led their evidence. The case is now fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Even after closure of his evidence by order of the Court passed on 30.7.2008, the petitioner remained satisfied for about a period of five months. Moreover, some of the documents sought to be produced i.e. aks sijra, khasra paimaish abadi deh of village Nayagaon and Naksha Paimaish are such which CR NO.166/2009(O&M) 3 could/should have been produced by the petitioner during eight opportunities granted to him to lead his evidence. Having failed to do so, now permitting him to produce those documents, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not be in the interest of justice, especially when the suit is already pending for the last about eight years and all this while the petitioner seemingly adopted a casual approach in defending his case. I find no fault with the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. No costs. 31.3.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge