Civil Revision No. 4616 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4616 of 2011 Date of decision. 07.12.2011 Rakesh Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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: Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Malwani, Advocate for the respondents. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Rakesh Kumar, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, vide which his application for additional evidence has been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 4616 of 2011 --2-- The plaintiff had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the demand raised by the defendants in a sum of Rs.93,020/- on the plaintiff is illegal and for permanent injunction restraining them from recovering the same from him. The suit was resisted by the respondents. In the said suit, the issues were framed in the year 2007 and the plaintiff concluded his evidence in the year 2009. The defendants also concluded their evidence on 23.02.2010 and thereafter the case is pending for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It is on 22.02.2011 that the plaintiff has filed the application for additional evidence, in which he has claimed that while he was leading his evidence, the factors regarding the appointment of Assessing Officer, its issuance of provisional notice, providing opportunity of personal hearing to the consumer could not be established on the record. It is claimed that the said evidence is essential as it goes to the root of the controversy. It is further claimed that it was due to oversight that the witnesses summoned by the plaintiff could not be asked in this regard. The application was opposed by the defendants. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, dismissed the application for the reasons that the plaintiff could not aver in the same that the evidence sought to be brought by way of additional evidence was not in his knowledge or could not be produced despite due diligence when he was leading his evidence and that the plaintiff was trying to fill up lacunae left in his case. Civil Revision No. 4616 of 2011 --3-- Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has brought this revision petition. I have heard Mr. Ramandeep, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kunal Malwani, learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for additional evidence without giving reasons for the same. According to him, the unreasoned order is liable to be set aside. He has submitted that technicalities of law should not be allowed to prevail upon the cause of justice. According to him, one opportunity may be given to the plaintiff for leading the additional evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiff could not even allege, what to talk of proving that the evidence sought to be led now was either not in his knowledge or could not be produced despite due diligence when he was leading his evidence. According to him, the very contents of the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner show that he had found out lacunae in his evidence and he wants to fill up those lacunae left in his evidence by way of additional evidence, which cannot be allowed. Learned trial court has though not noticed the contents of the application of the plaintiff for permission to lead additional evidence and Civil Revision No. 4616 of 2011 --4-- the reply filed thereto by the defendants, yet has given a valid reason for declining the prayer. Though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC are no more in the Code , yet a prayer made under section 151 CPC has to be allowed if the party applying satisfies the court that the evidence sought to be led as additional evidence was either not known to the applicant when he was leading his evidence or could not be brought by him at that time despite exercise of due diligence. The tenor of the application filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC shows that he had noticed some gaps in his evidence, which he wants to fill up by leading additional evidence. There is one more reason for declining the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner and the same is that he has nowhere made it clear as to which documents he has to produce or which witnesses he has to examine by way of additional evidence. In these circumstances, the vague plea of the plaintiff-petitioner for additional evidence could not have been allowed. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. 07.12.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge