C.R.No.544 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.544 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.1.2010 Bindro alias Balwindero .....Petitioner vs. Labh Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.R.S.Longia,Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. Defendant No.1 has filed this petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.1.2010 whereby her application for permission to produce certified copy of mutation No.5013 dated 19.7.1984 showing the date of death of Multani Devi as 22.1.1984, by way of additional evidence, has been rejected. As per the averments made in this petition, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed the present suit against the petitioner and proforma respondent No.6 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction to the effect that decree dated 7.4.1976 passed in Civil Suit No.210 of 1976, and mutation No.574 dated 1.3.1985 in favour of Chuhar Singh father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were wrong, null and void as result of fraud, vide which one Multani Devi mother of plaintiffs i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had transferred her share of land in favour of Chuhar Singh father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of a family settlement dated 1.1.1975. The case of the petitioner is that in the civil suit the plaintiff- respondents have simply stated a fact that said Multani Devi had died C.R.No.544 of 2010 2 leaving behind her Class-I heirs i.e., plaintiffs and proforma defendants in the suit but her date of death was not given. The trial Court framed the issues including the following issues:- “5) Whether the suit is hopelessly time barred ? OPD 6) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD” The burden of proof of the aforesaid issues was upon the defendants. The petitioner failed to locate any entry of the date of death of Multani Devi, although this fact should have been disclosed by the plaintiffs in the suit and now the petitioner has come to know that plaintiffs have got entered the date of her death in mutation No.5013 dated 19.7.1984 as 22.1.1984. Thus, in these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present application for allowing her to produce the aforesaid mutation as additional evidence to prove the date of death of Multani Devi without any delay. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the production of the aforesaid document in question is very necessary for the just and proper decision of the case and the rights of the respondents are not going to be prejudiced, in any manner, if the aforesaid evidence is allowed to be led. It was further asserted that the documents sought to be produced will certainly help the Court for properly adjudicating the dispute between the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. There is no dispute with the settled proposition of law that the Court can allow additional evidence in exercise of its powers at any stage if justice so warrants, and the evidence which otherwise is material cannot be C.R.No.544 of 2010 3 shut only due to some delay in moving the application for additional evidence. However, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to show that after exercising due diligence the evidence sought to be produced was not in her knowledge or could not be produced at the time when she was leading her evidence. Now at the fag end of the case, the petitioner cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna in her case. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to how this mutation entry with regard to the date of death of Multani Devi is relevant for proving defendants' case. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge January 28, 2010 rk