C.R No.7005 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.7005 of 2011 Date of Decision: 29.11.2011 M/s Shakti Rice Mill, Village Bandrala Tehsil Assandh ....Petitioner Versus Amrik Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J By way of filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, defendant No.1-petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 25.10.2011 (P.3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Assandh vide which the application of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 & 2 for leading additional evidence has been allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a suit for specific performance of contract with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit property. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application was filed by the plaintiffs-respondent C.R No.7005 of 2011 #2# Nos.1 & 2 to lead additional evidence and the same has been allowed by the learned trial Court, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the evidence, which the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 & 2 wanted to lead by way of additional evidence, was very much within their knowledge and they were supposed to prove the alleged facts mentioned in the application in the course of trial but they failed to do and now they are trying to fill up the lacuna in the pleadings. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.10.2011 reveals that the plaintiffs want to examine one of the officials of Sub Treasury Office i.e Government Office and wish to examine Scribe along with his register pertaining to the sale deed of the year 2001 and thus none of the evidence can be said to be manufactured by the plaintiffs after closure of their evidence. Moreover, defendant-petitioner has been compensated by way of cost of Rs.1000/-. In the opinion of this Court, there were sufficient reasons before the learned trial Court to allow the application dated 18.10.2011 (P.1), which has rightly been done in this case. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.10.2011 (P.3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge C.R No.7005 of 2011 #3# (Sr. Division), Assandh while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. November 29, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE