CR No. 3087 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3087 of 2011 Date of Decision: 10.5.2011. Amar Chand and others .......Petitioners Vs. Gram Panchayat and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-petitioners have filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. An application was filed by the petitioners seeking permission for producing evidence in rebuttal or in the alternative to lead additional evidence. Vide the impugned order dated 15.2.2011, the said application was dismissed by the trial court. Hence, the present petition by plaintiffs No. 1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the evidence, now sought to be led, was very essential for the just decision of the case. The witnesses, examined by the defendants, had denied any income from the land in dispute and due to this reason, the evidence now sought to be led by the petitioners was necessary. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. CR No. 3087 of 2011 (O&M) -2- The case is now listed before the trial court for rebuttal evidence, if any and for arguments. By way of rebuttal or additional evidence, the petitioners want to prove on record the mutation No. 2261 dated 14.9.1966 and copies of jamabandies for the year 1950-1951, 1954-1955 and 1960-1961. The plaintiffs want to examine Ram Kishan, lessee as a witness. The plaintiffs also want to prove on record entries in the khasra girdawari from Kharif crop 2007 to Kharif crop 2010. The plaintiffs further want to prove on record photographs qua the property in dispute. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in the year 2008. The documents now sought to be proved on record were already in the knowledge of the plaintiffs but for the reasons best known to them, they did not produce the relevant revenue record while leading their evidence in affirmative. Ram Kishan, lessee should have been examined by the plaintiffs while leading their evidence in the affirmative. In these circumstances, the learned trial court rightly held that at this stage, the application moved by the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE May 10, 2011 Gurpreet