Civil Revision No. 6972 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6972 of 2011 Date of decision. 17.11.2011 Bant Singh .... Petitioner Versus Jagsir Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Bant Singh, defendant no.1 has challenged the order dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure P-7) by way of this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ratia whereby his application for seeking permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. Jagsir Singh, respondent no.1 is the plaintiff before the trial court. He had brought a suit for injunction both in prohibitory and mandatory form restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over plot bearing khasra no. 518/13(1-14) situated in the Civil Revision No. 6972 of 2011 --2-- revenue estate of Ratia as also from raising any sort of construction therein. He had also sought removal of boundary walls raised over the plot in question. By way of an application for additional evidence, the defendants sought to lead evidence regarding the proceedings and orders passed in case No. 7435 of 2010 under Consolidation of Holdings Act as also of assessment no.1433 regarding property no.293/1859/4 on the ground that they could not lay their hands upon these documents earlier and had been able to get them after closing of their evidence. The application was opposed claiming that the evidence sought to be led is not relevant to the controversy raised in this suit. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Raita has dismissed the application, vide the impugned order. I have heard Shri S.S. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these documents are not only relevant but they could not be produced earlier because the defendants came to know of the same after closing of their evidence. It is contended that before the Consolidation Authorities, it was claimed by the plaintiff that his plot is not numbered in the revenue record. He has also submitted that assessment of the property would also be relevant to the matter in controversy. According to him, there was no Civil Revision No. 6972 of 2011 --3-- attempt on the part of the defendants to delay the decision of the suit. It is submitted that only one opportunity would be sufficient to produce the evidence. Considerations in allowing or declining the prayer for additional evidence are not based on convenience. Additional evidence cannot be allowed if the same is irrelevant to the point in controversy or if that evidence was not deliberately produced when the party seeking to produce the same as additional evidence was leading its evidence. It is also not a consideration in such matters that only one opportunity would be sufficient to produce the evidence. If the additional evidence is relevant and the party seeking to produce the same satisfies the other requirements of law, then more than one opportunity can be given to the party to produce the same. The case in hand is where Jagsir Singh has claimed himself to be owner in possession of plot bearing khasra no.518/13(1-14). On the other hand, the defendants have categorically claimed that they are owners in possession of khasra no.518/8(0-14) and they are in adverse possession of land measuring 1 kanal lying adjacent thereto, which is a part of khasra no.518/13. In the face of this plea of the defendants, it becomes clear that the defendants admitted the plaintiff to be owner of khasra no. 518/13 (1- 14) and have claimed that out of this land, they are in adverse possession of 1 kanal of land. They have to prove their adverse possession for a period of 12 years over the said portion before filing of the suit in order to Civil Revision No. 6972 of 2011 --4-- succeed in their defence and they cannot deny the plaintiffs to be owner in possession of khasra no.518/13. I fail to understand, for these reasons, as to how the order of consolidation authorities and municipal committee would be relevant to the facts in controversy in the suit. Therefore, learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for additional evidence. Accordingly I find no merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same. 17.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE