Civil Revision No.953 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.953 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 Baldev Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Chitranjan Dev and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Nand Lal Sami, Advocate for the petitioners S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Trial Court declined a plea (for additional evidence) put forward by the defendants-petitioners for being allowed to tender copies of revenue record into evidence. For that finding, the learned Trial court drew sustenance from the following facts:- The evidence of the defendants-petitioners was initially closed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.3.2007. The defendants- petitioners came up in revision and this Court allowed them one opportunity for concluding their evidence. Even thereafter, defendants-petitioners could not adduce their evidence which (evidence) came to be closed by the Court, vide order dated 6.12.2007. The learned Trial Court observed that the evidence of the defendants-petitioners having been closed twice by the orders of the Court, they cannot be allowed to adduce additional evidence. For the very reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court, with which this Court finds itself in complete agreement, the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. The mere fact that the documents to be tendered Civil Revision No.953 of 2009 -2- **** into additional evidence are part of the self proved documents would not justify the allowance of the request. A party which repeatedly commits dereliction cannot be heard to plead for equity which exactly is the line of reasoning on behalf of the petitioners before this Court. Dismissed in limine. February 24, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge