Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 02.11.2011 M/s R.K. Dyeing Industry Behind Khadi Ashram .... Petitioner Versus M/s CTA Apparels Pvt. Ltd.& another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Virender Singh Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.25998-CII of 2011 The petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copy of Annexure P-1. CM stands disposed of. CR No.6665 of 2011 The present revision petition has been brought by the plaintiff under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 07.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, whereby the application of the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2011 --2-- In a suit for recovery of Rs.4,76,133/-, the plaintiff has filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence claiming that it is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, Haryana at Chandigarh. It is claimed that the plaintiff could not procure certified copies of forms 'A' and 'C' despite making lot of efforts. It is further claimed that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff came to know that the record pertaining to the year 1991-92 had been sent to District Registrar of Firms and Societies, Panipat. The plaintiff could succeed in getting certified copies of forms 'A' and 'C' on 04.08.2011 when its evidence had already been closed. The application was opposed by the defendants. It is claimed that while leading evidence, it has not come from the side of the plaintiff that it has not been able to get certified copies of forms 'A' and 'C' or that the record pertaining to the year 1991-92 had been sent to District Registrar of Firms and Societies, Panipat. It is claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to lead additional evidence and the application is prayed to be dismissed. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat has dismissed the application vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2011 --3-- I have heard Shri Virender Singh Punia, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff could not obtain certified copies of forms 'A' and 'C' before 04.08.2011 and by that time he had already closed its evidence. According to him, the evidence is quite material to the claim of the plaintiff and it should be allowed to be led. Every material evidence is not required to be allowed as additional evidence. If the party has been negligent in producing its evidence and the negligence is clearly shown on the record, the said party cannot be allowed to produce the same in additional evidence. Prayer to produce such evidence in such a case would amount to permission to fill up lacuna left in the case. It is a case where photocopies of forms 'A' and 'C' were already on the record when the plaintiff was leading its evidence. Forms 'A' and 'C' are not the original documents of which the copies were placed on the record by the plaintiff. The said documents are issued by Registrar of Firms and Societies for registration of firms and about the names of the partners of the said firm. The very presence of photocopies of forms 'A' and 'C' with the plaintiff even at the time when the evidence was being led by the plaintiff, shows that the plea raised by the plaintiff-petitioner in the application that it could not get certified copies of forms 'A' and 'C' despite making lot of efforts and that it came to know that the record Civil Revision No. 6665 of 2011 --4-- pertaining to the year 1991-92 had been sent to District Registrar of Firms and Societies, Panipat and could succeed in getting copies thereof only on 04.08.2011, is clearly shown to be incorrect. In these circumstances allowing the application would definitely amount to permission to fill up lacuna, which cannot be done. Therefore, learned trial court has been fully justified in declining the prayer of the plaintiff for permission to lead additional evidence. The revision petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 02.11.2011 dinesh