Civil Revision No. 5179 of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5179 of 2006 Date of decision : 12.1.2010 Kailash Chand ....Petitioner Versus Kishan Lal and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. A plea filed by the petitioner, for leave of the Court to tender Jamabandis for the period of 1970 till date, alongwith certified copy of statement of a witness and also certified copy of panchayatnama/compromise deed, was declined by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is in revision against it. The averment made by the petitioner was that the proposed additional evidence shall enable him to prove the ancestral character of the suit property. In support of the plea, it was averred that the evidence aforementioned inadvertently escaped his notice. The learned Trial Judge declined the plea by observing that with the abolition of Order 18 Rule 17A (vide amendment Act No.46 of 1999), there is no provision in the C.P.C. which would conceptualize Civil Revision No. 5179 of 2006 -2- **** adducing of additional evidence. The learned Trial Court conceded that the plea additional evidence could be considered in terms of provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. but declined to exercise indulgence by noticing that petitioner had nowhere pleaded in the course of the application that proposed additional evidence was not within his knowledge at the time evidence of affirmative character was being adduced and further had also not been able to explain how exactly the proposed additional evidence shall be essential for just decision of the case. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to persuade me to find any fault in the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge. The matter is already fixed for final arguments. The petitioner has not been able to even to make an averment about the circumstances under which the proposed additional evidence could not be brought on record at an earlier point of time or at the time the evidence of affirmative character was being adduced. Finding no force in the petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. January 12,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE