C. R. No. 2368 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2368 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 08, 2010 Ratti Ram and others .... Petitioners Vs. Moti Ram and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. J. S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by defendants no.1, 11 and 24, assailing order dated 27.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, thereby dismissing application moved by defendants for additional evidence. Defendants alleged in the application that the case was fixed for 28.07.2009 for tendering of documents by defendants in their evidence, but the local Bar observed complete strike on that day in support of their demand for establishment of District Courts at Palwal. Accordingly, defendants appeared in the Court, but being rural rustic villagers, they could not produce the documents in the Court on that day nor they could understand the order of closing evidence of the defendants passed by the Court. On the next date, it transpired that evidence of the defendants had been closed by court order. The defendants had already handed over C. R. No. 2368 of 2010 2 requisite documents to their counsel and the said documents are to be produced in additional evidence being essential for proper adjudication of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. The trial court has observed that evidence of the defendants was closed by court order on 02.06.2009 and not on 28.07.2009. The bar was not on strike on 02.06.2009, when evidence of the defendants was closed by court order in the presence of their counsel. Consequently, the very ground, on which the application for additional evidence was moved, is knocked out. In addition to the aforesaid, the defendants in their application for additional evidence, did not even mention as to what documents they wanted to produce by way of additional evidence. The plaintiffs in their reply also raised objection to this effect that the defendants have not mentioned the documents sought to be produced in additional evidence. In spite thereof, the defendants did not specify before the trial court the documents, which were to be produced by way of additional evidence. For this reason as well, the trial court dismissed the application of defendants for additional evidence. However, in spite thereof, even in the instant revision petition, the petitioners have not taken the trouble of specifying the documents, which they propose to produce by way of additional evidence. Obviously, the petitioners cannot be granted open and blanket permission to produce any documents whatsoever by way of additional evidence. On the other hand, additional evidence sought to be produced has to be specified and only then the Court can apply its mind whether such evidence can be permitted as additional evidence or not. In the instant case, since the documents sought to be produced in additional evidence have not been specified at any stage, no permission can be granted to the defendants to lead additional evidence. C. R. No. 2368 of 2010 3 For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial court, so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE