C.R.No.5235 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5235 of 2009 Date of Decision : 14.09.2009 Parkash ...Petitioner Versus Rajender Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Mehndiratta, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff No.2 is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 12.8.2009, whereby an application for permission to lead additional evidence, was declined. The sole reason for seeking permission to lead additional evidence is that at the time of filing of the suit, the petitioner was a minor and since now he has attained the majority, therefore, he is entitled to lead evidence, which his mother has failed to lead, when she was prosecuting the suit on his behalf as well. The plaintiff attained the age of majority on 30.9.2007. The evidence of the plaintiff has been closed in affirmative on 1.5.2008 i.e. after he attained the age of majority. Once the plaintiff has chosen to prosecute the present suit, it is not open to him to seek permission to lead additional evidence only with a motive to fill up the lacuna in evidence, which his mother as natural guardian could not lead. Thus, I am of the opinion that the reasoning given by the learned trial Court to decline the permission to lead additional evidence C.R.No.5235 of 2009 2 cannot be said to be suffering from patent illegality or irregularity, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 14.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE