CR No. 4638 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4638 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.08.2009 Manohar Lal son of Rahmat, resident of village Peeran Bagh, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus Gurdev son of Sain son of Makhan Singh and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 29.07.09, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide which, it dismissed the application, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, for additional evidence. 2. The plaintiff/revision-petitioner, filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants/respondents, and their agents, from dispossessing and interfering into the peaceful user of the grave- CR No. 4638 of 2009 2 yard by him, and from dismantling and causing any damage to the same, which was constructed in the land, in dispute, bearing khewat No. 408, khatauni No. 699, khasra No. 80 (6-19). The plaintiff/revision-petitioner, closed the evidence. Thereafter, the defendants also closed the evidence, and when the case, was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, an application for additional evidence, was filed, which was dismissed, vide order dated 29.07.09. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 5. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the site plan prepared by the draftsman sought to be produced in additional evidence, when the case, was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, was essential for the just decision of the case. He further submitted that with a view to impart substantial justice, the Court below, was required to allow the application, but it illegally dismissed the same. He further submitted that the order, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is evident from the impugned order that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, on 18.09.05. No site plan, was filed, at the CR No. 4638 of 2009 3 time of instituting the suit. Even no site plan, was produced, and got proved, at the time of leading evidence by the plaintiff/revision- petitioner. The plaintiff/revision-petitioner, closed the evidence. Even the defendants closed the evidence. As stated above, when the case, was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, the application for additional evidence, was filed. It is further evident from the order that earlier an application, under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed, on 10.10.05, by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, for appointment of Local Commissioner, which was dismissed, and the revision filed against the same, was also dismissed, vide order dated 18.11.05, by this Court. It could not be said that the plaintiff/revision- petitioner, was not in knowledge of the site plan of the property, in question, and, therefore, he could not produce the same at the time of filing the suit, or during the course of evidence. He slept over the matter, for about four years, and ultimately, when the case, was fixed for rebuttal evidence, and arguments, he came with an application for additional evidence, for production of the site plan. Such belated attempt made by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was only to delay the proceedings, in question. The plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was not vigilant and diligent enough, to lead the evidence, in affirmative, which according to him, was essential, for the just decision of the case. Even otherwise, the property being described by khasra nos. the additional evidence sought to be produced, was not essential for the just decision of the case. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional CR No. 4638 of 2009 4 jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision-petition, is liable to be dismissed. 7. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision-petition, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 18.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE