Civil Revision No.5382 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5382 of 2011 Date of Decision:-05.09.2011 Pritam Kaur & Ors. ......Petitioners. Versus Tirath Kaur & Ors. ......Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Anupam Jain, Advocate for the Plaintiffs/Petitioners. *** JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Phagwara whereby their application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. Facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 2003 for restraining the defendants/respondents no.1 to 4 from taking over illegal possession or alienating their land measuring 19 marlas comprised in Khasra No.238/0-19, Khata No.457/561 situated at village Palahi, Tehsil Phagwara. It is further submitted that due to typographical mistake the Khasra number in the description of the property was wrongly Civil Revision No.5382 of 2011 #2# mentioned in the sale deed as Khasra No.238/0-19, Khata No.457/561 inspite of the fact that the same do not match with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed and that the defendants/respondents want to take undue advantage of this mistake by claiming possession over the property in dispute. It is further stated that immediately after coming to know about the aforesaid fact plaintiffs/petitioners moved application for leading additional evidence for exhibiting the documents i.e. Jamabandi(P-2) and copy of mutation(P-3) already on record of trial court. It is further stated that these documents were necessary for the decision of the said case. It is further stated that the learned Trial Court without appreciating the facts of the case, dismissed their application for leading additional evidence. Hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners submits that documents i.e. Jamabandi(P-2) and copy of mutation(P-3) are already on record of trial court but inadvertently the same could not be exhibited in their evidence. He further submits that the said documents are public record and necessary for the decision of the suit. He further submits that the defendants/respondents want to take undue advantage by mentioning the wrong facts. He further submits that the order of the learned trial Court dismissing the application for leading additional evidence is wrong and unsustainable in the eyes of law. He prays that the present petition may be allowed and one opportunity may be granted to them for leading additional evidence to prove the aforesaid documents on record which are necessary for the decision of the case. After hearing learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners and going through the record, I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf Civil Revision No.5382 of 2011 #3# of the petitioners. From the perusal of record it is clear that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 2003 and case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 12.06.2004. Thereafter plaintiffs/petitioners availed numerous opportunities to lead their evidence and concluded their evidence on 26.07.2010 i.e. after a period of six years and immediately thereafter respondents also closed their evidence and case was fixed for rebuttal evidence on 19.01.2011. Rebuttal evidence was closed by order on 28.07.2011 and arguments were concluded by the Counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners and part arguments were also advanced by the Counsel for the respondents/defendants. Thereafter plaintiffs/petitioners moved application for leading additional evidence. It is clear that plaintiffs/petitioners were not diligent while leading their evidence and only to fill up the lacuna in their evidence, they want to lead additional evidence. Further plaintiffs/petitioners have failed to give any plausible explanation for not adducing/proving the aforesaid documents in their evidence despite the fact that they have availed numerous opportunities for leading their evidence. In my considered view, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for leading additional evidence and hence I find no ground to allow the present petition. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 05, 2011 Vinay