Civil Revision No. 6265 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6265 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.4.2009 M/s OBC Export ..... Petitioner vs Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff has approached this court challenging the order passed by the learned court below dated 26.8.2008 whereby the application filed by him for leading additional evidence was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint against respondents/defendants from dispossessing the petitioner from plot no. 227, Phase VII, Udyog Nagar, Gurgaon. It is in this suit that the petitioner filed application for additional evidence which was dismissed by the learned court below observing that the suit was quite old and the same was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments and object of the petitioner/plaintiff was merely to delay the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had produced photo copies of the correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents on record, however, inadvertently those were not exhibited. The same has material bearing on the suit filed by the petitioner. The documents which are sought to be produced on record are matter of record with the respondents and there is no question of creation of any fresh evidence. It would be just and fair if the petitioner is permitted to prove those documents by leading additional evidence. The petitioner, at all, is not interested in delaying the proceedings. However, inconvenience caused to the respondents can very well be compensated with costs as procedural law is subservient to justice. Reliance was placed on Weston Civil Revision No. 6265 of 2008 (2) Electronics Limited vs M/s Chand Radio and others (1988-1) 93 PLR 690. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the impugned order submitted that the petitioner was well within the knowledge of the documents which are sought to be produced in additional evidence. Pre-requisites for leading additional evidence have not been complied with. At the fag end of the trial, he should not be permitted to fill in the lacuna in the evidence. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. No doubt the suit is pending for the last more than a decade. However, the fact remains that the correspondence which is sought to be produced by the petitioner by leading additional evidence is communication between the petitioner and the respondents. Photo copies of the documents are already on record but due to inadvertence the same could not be exhibited at the relevant time. As the correspondence between the parties regarding the plot in question will have material bearing in the suit filed by the petitioner, while setting aside the impugned order, as a matter of indulgence, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to prove the same by leading additional evidence. However, the same shall be subject to payment of Rs. 5000/-, as costs, to the respondents. Parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the learned court below on 8.5.2009 on which date the learned court below will grant one opportunity to the petitioner to prove the correspondence with the respondents by leading additional evidence. After the petitioner leads additional evidence, the respondents shall also be granted one opportunity to rebut the same, in case they so require. Considering the fact that the suit is quite old, the learned court below will make endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously. Disposed of. 28.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge