Civil Revision No. 6556 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6556 of 2011 Date of decision. 31.10.2011 Smt. Sudesh Kumari .... Petitioner Versus President, Municipal Committee, Narwana and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.R.S. Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. By way of this revision petition, brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Smt. Sudesh Kumari, the plaintiff has challenged the order dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned District Judge, Jind, whereby her application for additional evidence has been dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking relief of declaration to the effect that she is entitled to the service benefits on the death of her husband Rajender Kumar. The said suit was decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind . In the appeal, preferred by Municipal Committee, Narwana before learned District Judge, Jind, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to produce additional evidence for proving legal notice issued under section 80 Civil Revision No. 6556 of 2011 --2-- CPC, its postal receipt and acknowledgment apart from the judgment dated 11.01.2010 passed by learned Labour Court, Panipat. The plea is that these documents could not be proved and exhibited inadvertently before the trial court. It is also pleaded that their production is very essential for effective adjudication of the appeal. The application was opposed by respondent no.2, who had alleged that vide this application, the petitioner wanted to fill up lacuna left in the case. The application was prayed to be dismissed. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned District Judge, Jind dismissed the application vide order dated 20.08.2011. I have heard Shri R.S. Dhull, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence are already there on the record of the trial court. According to him, the documents alone are to be proved and learned District Judge, Jind should not have declined the prayer of the petitioner. When questioned as to whether these documents are per-se admissible or if some witnesses have to be examined to prove them, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that evidence would have to be led to prove those documents. What evidence has to be led to prove those documents is not specified in the application. The application is consequently vague. Civil Revision No. 6556 of 2011 --3-- The case set up by the petitioner for additional evidence does not fall within the purview of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC because the very fact that these documents are already on the record and are not exhibited would show that due diligence was not exercised while the evidence was led before the trial court. The question that would remain to be answered here is as to whether the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are required by the court for effective adjudication of the appeal. This question was also considered by learned District Judge, Jind and he has observed that these documents are not required by the court for effective adjudication of the appeal. Nothing has been argued before me to show that these documents are required by the appellate court for effective adjudication of the appeal. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner was not covered by the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, which might justify interference with the same in the revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 31.10.2011 dinesh