IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.27 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.1.2009. Kanta Sareen ....Petitioner Versus The Punjab Urban Development Authority and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for allowing the petitioner/appellant to produce additional evidence was dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court. In the application, the prayer was made for production of an order vide which the allotment of LIG Flat in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The prayer was rejected by the learned Court below considering the fact that challenge to the cancellation order was one of the relief claimed in suit which was instituted way back on February 26, 2005 and decided on February 7, 2007. During all this period inspite of the fact that the defence of defendant/respondents was struck off no effort was made by the petitioner/appellant before the trial Court to bring the documents on record. The prayer to that regard was dismissed by the trial Court only on account of the fact that the impugned document i.e. the cancellation order was not brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document in question is very material for proper decision of the lis between the parties and incase the prayer is not allowed the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. C.R. No.27 of 2009 (O&M) -2- However, the arguments is mis-conceded seeing the conduct of the petitioner. One who approaches the Court has to vigilant to pursue the case and bring the entire relevant material on record at the appropriate stage. Knowledge of the document at the time of filing of suit is not derived as one of the relief claimed in the suit is for setting aside of the cancellation order. Inspite of the pendency of the suit for merely two years and the defence of the defendants/respondents having been struck off, no efforts were made by the petitioner to bring the documents on record before the trial Court. Even before the lower Appellate Court also the application for leading additional evidence was filed more than five months after the filing of the appeal. Seeing the conduct of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, whereby the application for additional evidence at the appellate stage has been dismissed. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 7.1.2009 JUDGE Reema