IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1637 of 2008 Date of decision: April 28, 2008. Raminder Pal Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Sarwan Singh & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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: Shri Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 7.3.2008 whereby the petitioner – plaintiff's application to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that he is joint owner in possession of the subject land along with defendants No.2 to 10 and that defendant No.1 has nothing to do with the subject land, whose name has been illegally entered into the column of cultivation in the revenue record. The above stated suit was filed by the petitioner in January, 2003. In January, 2008, when both the parties had led their evidence and the suit was ripe for final arguments, the present application was moved to lead additional evidence comprising revenue record for the year 1985-86, 1990-91 and khasra girdawri from Kharif Crop from 1986 to 1991. Admittedly, not only the above documents were in existence at the time when the suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 2003, the same were also available while the petitioner was leading his evidence. It is not the petitioner's case that these documents were not in his knowledge or that he could not obtain copies thereof for some reason beyond his control. In these circumstances, no case to lead additional evidence at this stage is made out. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, vehemently contends that in the light of the judgments reported as Bishan Ram v. Surinder Singh, 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 47 (P&H), Phool Chand Jain & Ors. v. Smt. Jotri Devi & Ors., 2002(1) Civil Court Cases 71 (P&H) and Jeeto @ Smt. Manjit kaur v. Union of India, 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 678 (P&H), the petitioner is entitled to lead additional evidence. I have gone through the above mentioned judgments which were delivered in the light of facts and circumstances of each case and are totally distinguishable. Dismissed. April 28, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge