IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6297 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.09.2010 Shiv Ram & others .......... Petitioners Versus Papram Pujaya Sadguru Sri Asha Ram Ji Bapu, Sri Yog Vedant Sewa Satsang Mandal, Harphla Road Seekri, Tehsil Ballabgarh District Faridabad ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.9.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jind, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence was ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 were the owners in possession in equal share of land measuring 120K-8M situated at village Anta Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, as the plaintiff and defendant No.3 has been coming as open,hostile, uninterrupted possession without payment of anything to anyone and to the blunt knowledge of all concerned including the defendants w.e.f. May 1974. The petitioner also challenged the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1993, passed in civil suit No. 381 of 1993 titled as Jainish Vs. Sahib Singh to be illegal, null and void, against law and not binding on the plaintiff and defendant No.3. In the suit, an application was moved for leading additional evidence, to produce on record of civil suit No. 267 of 2006 showing pending in the Court between different parties in which the subject matter was different to the one raised in the plaint. The learned trial Court, therefore, recorded a finding, that the additional evidence sought to be led was neither necessary for adjudication of the case, nor was relevant as the civil suit pending between different parties qua different land could not be an evidence which could be allowed to lead by way of additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the learned trial Court has failed to see the Aksh Sijra showing, that the property was joint and the property in dispute was joint property in another suit, therefore, the impugned order can not be sustained. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned trial Court failed to notice that the plaintiff was brother of the defendants, therefore, the said evidence was necessary for adjudication of this case. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are totally misconceived. No evidence beyond pleading can be led. It is not the case of the petitioner in the plain,t that the other suit pending had any relevance to the present suit in hand. The parties to the suit are also different, therefore, the filing of suit or pleading made therein be ---raised in this revision, mere because there is some relationship of the plaintiff with the party in the present suit can not be a ground to allow a party to lead additional evidence, whereas suit or pleadings made therein--, as they are not said to be relevant to the controversy raised—in the suit. The order passed by the learned trial Court is in consonance with the law, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 28.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE