Civil Revision No. 5741 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5741 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2010 Mukesh and another ....Petitioners Versus Ramdia and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 30.8.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, District Sonepat, vide which the application moved by the petitioners for leading additional evidence, stands declined. The plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit for recovery of amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lac only) along with interest and damages, on the ground that the petitioners were induced to enter into an agreement to sell by playing a fraud on them. The plea raised was, that the agreement was entered into on the basis of false revenue entries. When the case was at the stage of arguments, an application was moved by the petitioners to place on record the copy of statement, compromise and order dated 11.4.1969, copy of order and decree-sheet dated 4.7.1969, copy of plaint dated 27.2.1969, copy of written statement dated 20.3.1969 and copy of mutations No.5819 and 5326. Civil Revision No. 5741 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The case of the petitioners in the application for additional evidence was, that the petitioners were not aware of these documents when the suit was filed and it came to their knowledge only on information received from Sh. Giani. The application was opposed. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground, that the documents sought to be produced were very old and, therefore, could be easily found out by the petitioners with due diligence. The learned trial Court further held, that the documents now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence have no relevance with the matter in suit, as the suit for recovery was filed on the basis of agreement to sell. The learned trial Court, thus, recorded a finding, that the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are not such which are necessary for the Court to reach to a just and proper conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court on the ground, that the documents sought to be produced were orders of the Court, certified copies of which were per se admissible, and were necessary for decision of the case, as these documents will prove the case of the petitioners, that they were misled to enter into agreement of sale. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The learned trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the documents were not relevant to the matter in issue for the reason that the evidence sought to be led is beyond pleadings. Civil Revision No. 5741 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Evidence even if allowed, cannot be read in evidence, as no evidence beyond pleadings can be looked into. No ground, therefore, is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 08, 2010 R.S.