Civil Revision No.2283 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2283 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:27.09.2010 Gurminder Kaur .....petitioner Versus Kuldeep Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.M.S.Uppal,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Abhishek Arora,Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order, whereby defendant-respondent No.4 was allowed to lead additional evidence, at the fag end of the case. As per the averments made in this petition, plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and defendants be restrained from interfering into his possession except in due course of law. The parties led evidence. Evidence of the defendant No.4 was closed on 15.10.2009 and the case was fixed for rebuttal/arguments. However, respondent moved an application dated 03.02.2010 for leading additional evidence to produce the certified copy of the order dated Civil Revision No.2283 of 2010(O & M) 2 21.09.1983 passed by Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh. The aforesaid application was allowed and vide impugned order defendant No.4 was permitted to produce the aforesaid order dated 21.09.1983 by way of additional evidence. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order dated 21.09.1983 was in the knowledge of the defendant-respondent and the same could have been proved while leading evidence and no case is made out to allow the same to be produced by way of additional evidence. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the defendant-respondents had availed more than 13 opportunities for completing their evidence and this application is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that even the application filed to adduce additional evidence, does not fulfill the necessary ingredients for allowing additional evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the document was necessary to be produced for the just decision of the case and the same was righly allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the averments made in this petition. A perusal of Annexure P-2 (i.e.application for leading evidence) shows that the defendant-respondent has not mentioned that the order dated 21.09.1983 was not to his knowledge. It may also be seen that though the certified copy of the aforesaid order, which was applied on 15.09.2009 was ready on 3011.2009, the present application was moved on 03.02.2010, meaning thereby that when the petitioner was leading his evidence, it was to his knowledge that the aforesaid order is to be Civil Revision No.2283 of 2010(O & M) 3 produced on record as evidence. He never made a request before the Court that he be allowed to avail an opportunity to produce on record the order dated 21.09.1983 despite the fact that he had already applied for certified copy of the same. The evidence was closed on 15.10.2009. Even, it has not been averred that despite due diligence, the defendants- respondents could not produce the same, earlier. Neither, there is any averment that the aforesaid document was necessary for just decision of the case. Thus, the necessary ingredients for allowing additional evidence, are not made out and the additional evidence has been illegally allowed, vide impugned order. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 27.09.2010 neenu