CR No. 8493 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 8493 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.01.2011. Ramphal and others .......Petitioners Vs. Smt. Dholi and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the plaintiffs for permission to lead additional evidence. Vide impugned order dated 25.11.2010, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners by way of additional evidence want to summon list of ownership, as was recorded in the revenue record in the year 1971-72. The said list of ownership, which was sought to be proved on record, was thus in the knowledge of petitioners but they had failed to prove the CR No. 8493 of 2010 (O&M) -2- same while leading their evidence. The oral evidence of plaintiffs was closed on 21.7.2009 and the case was adjourned for filing of documents by the plaintiffs. On 1.9.2009 plaintiffs closed their evidence after tendering documents. Defendants closed their evidence on 02.3.2010 and now the case is listed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs, if any, and arguments. Since the plaintiffs had failed to establish that despite due diligence they could not produce the list of ownership in their evidence, the learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application, filed by the plaintiffs. Moreover, Rule 17A of Order 18 has been deleted vide Amendment Act 1999 w.e.f. 1.7.2002. Hence, no ground warranting interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 28, 2011 Gurpreet