IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1256 of 2008. Date of Decision: 08th May, 2008. Gaya Lal & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate Versus Soni & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.15. Remaining respondents ex-parte. . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5th February, 2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurgaon whereby an application for additional evidence moved by the petitioner/plaintiff at the appellate stage, has been dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming,inter-alia, that on the basis of occupancy tenancy, they have become owners in possession of the subject land. Their suit was, however, dismissed by the learned trial Court. They have preferred an appeal which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge. Civil Revision No. 1256 of 2008. ::-2-:: During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners moved an application to lead additional evidence which has, however, been dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court on the ground that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead their evidence by the learned trial Court and no evidence can be permitted to fill up the lacuna. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard and other material has also been perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the additional evidence is not being led to fill-up any lacuna. According to him, the additional evidence is comprising of copies of the revenue record in order to connect the old revenue numbers of the subject land with the new numbers allotted to it. It is contended that the old revenue numbers as well as the new numbers allotted to the subject land are already on record and it is only to identify, connect and co- relate the new numbers with the old ones that the additional evidence is required. Keeping in view the nature of the lis, I am of the considered view that the additional evidence if permitted to be led shall facilitate the learned appellate Court to arrive at a just conclusion. The additional evidence sought to be produced comprises of certified copies of the mutations/Jamabandis etc. which are otherwise per-se admissible in evidence. At the best, one official of the revenue department may be required to be examined so as to connect the old numbers with the new numbers. Needless to say that Civil Revision No. 1256 of 2008. ::-3-:: the respondent-defendants shall also be entitled to rebut the same, if so required. For the reasons aforementioned, this revision petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 5th February, 2008 is set aside. The petitioners are allowed to lead additional evidence comprising of Mutations/Jamabandies etc. for the limited purpose of connecting the old numbers with the new ones, if any, allotted to those old numbers, subject to, however, payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the respondents/defendants. Disposed of. May 08, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE