C. R. No. 87 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 87 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 02, 2010 Mukhtiar Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Paro Bai and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 2248-C-II of 2010 : Application is allowed and certified copy of impugned order Annexure P-3 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Defendant no.1 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 24.10.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, thereby dismissing the application moved by defendant no.1 for leading additional evidence. Petitioner-defendant no.1, by way of additional evidence, wants to produce in evidence cancellation deed dated 29.07.2003, whereby Power of Attorney dated 12.07.1993 executed by plaintiff-respondent no.1 was C. R. No. 87 of 2010 (O&M) 2 allegedly cancelled by her. It is alleged in the application for additional evidence (Annexure P-1) that this document (cancellation deed dated 29.07.2003) was not in the knowledge of defendant no.1, when defendants led their evidence, but now the defendants have come to know of the existence of the said document and accordingly, certified copy of cancellation deed is required to be produced by way of additional evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned trial court has observed in the impugned order that defendant no.1-applicant has failed to plead as to how he came to know of the cancellation deed now. Since this fact was not explained, the application for additional evidence has been dismissed. Even now, on pointed inquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to how the petitioner learnt of the cancellation deed at late stage and not at the stage, when the defendants were leading their evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain the same by submitting that inquiries were made from the office of Sub Registrar and thereupon, cancellation deed, which is a registered document, came to the knowledge of the petitioner. However, the alleged inquiries should have been made at the stage, when the defendants were leading their evidence. Nothing prevented the defendants from making such inquiries at that stage. Consequently, it cannot be said that inspite of due diligence, the petitioner could not have produced this document at the stage of defendants' evidence. Here it may be noticed that the plaintiff in her evidence had already produced cancellation deed dated 22.04.1995. The petitioner has alleged that the said cancellation deed dated 22.04.1995 is a forged and fabricated document. However, inspite thereof, the defendants, at the stage of their evidence, i.e. subsequent to production of cancellation deed dated 22.04.1995 by the plaintiff, did not produce the alleged cancellation deed dated 29.07.2003 in their evidence. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned C. R. No. 87 of 2010 (O&M) 3 order of the trial court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 02, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE