Civil Revision No. 4934 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4934 of 2009 Date of decision. 31.08.2009 Krishan Kumar s/o Babu Ram, r/o Dhanaula, Tehsil and District Barnala. ....... Petitioner Versus Municipal Committee, Dhanaula Tehsil and District Barnala through its Executive Officer. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, vide which it allowed the application of the defendant (now Civil Revision No. 4934 of 2009 --2-- respondent) to lead additional evidence regarding resolution no.81 dated 06.03.2009. 2. The plaintiff (now revision- petitioner) claimed that he was the owner of the property, in dispute, and the defendant was in illegal possession thereof. He was asked to vacate the same, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for possession was filed. 3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence by way of producing and proving resolution no.81 dated 06.03.2009 was filed by the defendant(now respondent), on the ground that the same was relevant and material, for the just decision of the case. 4. That application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent, on the ground that the evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, was neither Civil Revision No. 4934 of 2009 --3-- relevant, nor essential for the just decision of the case. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the record, the trial Court allowed the application, vide the order impugned. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully. 8. The Counsel for the revision- petitioner, submitted that resolution no.81 dated 06.03.2009, was neither relevant nor necessary, nor essential for the just decision of the case. He further submitted that the trial Court was, thus, wrong in allowing the application, vide the order impugned. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. Civil Revision No. 4934 of 2009 --4-- 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision- petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the defendant (now respondent) for producing and proving the resolution no.81 dated 06.03.2009, it was, in clear cut terms stated that the same was a material document and relevant for the just decision of the case. The defendant closed the evidence on 24.01.2008. The resolution, sought to be produced and proved, by way of additional evidence, was passed on 06.03.2009. It means that the same was not in existence on 24.01.2008, when the defendant closed its evidence. This resolution, as is evident, from the order impugned, related to the site plan, proved on the file, by the plaintiff. The trial Court was not required Civil Revision No. 4934 of 2009 --5-- to go deep into the merits of the case. Once it was prima facie established, to the satisfaction of the Court below, that the said resolution was essential for the just decision of the case, it was right in allowing the application. No help can be drawn by the Counsel from Amrik Singh v. Jodh Singh, 1998(3) PLR 417. In that case, the documents, sought to be produced, by way of additional evidence, had already been proved. However, those documents remained un-exhibited. In these circumstances, the Court held that, at the time of arguments, in the main case, the Counsel for the plaintiff could certainly argue that such documents were liable to be exhibited, having already been proved. It was, under these circumstances, that it was held that the application for additional evidence, was wrongly accepted by the trial Court. The order impugned, allowing the application, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not suffer from Civil Revision No. 4934 of 2009 --6-- any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity and, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference,of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. ( Sham Sunder ) August 31, 2009 Judge dinesh