IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.922 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 09, 2011 Sukhvir singh .......Petitioner Versus Palwinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Ms.Reena Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. <><><> RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.12.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide which application filed by the petitioner for examination of Registration Clerk, of the office of sub Registrar, Jalandhar and Resham Singh, attesting witness of the will dated 9.12.1999, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner of land measuring 4 kanals comprised in khasra numbers 26//6/1 situated in village Dhaliwal, Tehsil and District Jalandhar on the Civil Revision No.922 of 2011 -2- basis of a registered will executed by Sohan Singh in favour of the plaintiff and further suit for declaration to the effect that gift deeds bearing Nos.5349 and 5350, registered on 27.3.2002, both executed by Sohan Singh in favour of Sukhwinder Singh and Phuman singh are a result of fraud and fabrication and are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the legal rights of the plaintiff qua his ownership of the land measuring 4 kanals comprised in khasra numbers 26//6/1 and the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendants No.3 and 4 from alienating/selling or parting with the possession of land measuring 4 kanals comprised in khasra No.26//6/1 situated in the area of village Dhaliwal, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendants. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence. Evidence of both the parties was concluded. The present application for additional evidence was filed when the case was fixed for arguments which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court by observing as under: “Perusal of the file reveals that issues in the instant case were framed on 8.10.2005. Thereafter, plaintiff availed as many as 28 opportunities to lead his evidence. Perusal of the file further reveals that the plaintiff had moved an application to lead secondary evidence, which was allowed by the court. Thereafter, another application for appointment of guardian was also filed by the plaintiff. Numerous effective opportunities were availed by the plaintiff to lead their evidence, but no evidence was led. Thereafter, another Civil Revision No.922 of 2011 -3- application for leading secondary evidence was filed, which was duly disposed of by my learned predecessor. Again case was fixed for evidence of plaintiff. Since, plaintiff failed to conclude his evidence, evidence of plaintiff was closed vide order dated 8.12.2009 by my learned predecessor by passing detailed order. Keeping in view the conduct of the plaintiff, there is no justifiable ground made out, to allow the present application. Moreover, allowing the present application would tantamount to recalling of order dated 8.12.2009, which is not permissible under law. In view of the provisions contained in Civil Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act, the application in hand carries no weight and the same is hereby dismissed. Now, to come up on 18.1.2011 for rebuttal evidence, if any and for arguments.” It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses are material who can prove the will dated 9.12.1999 to be genuine, hence, one opportunity be granted. However, as is clear from the aforementioned part of the order, the present suit pertains to the year 2004. Issues were also framed on 8.10.2005. Several opportunities were given to lead evidence. Law has been well settled in the case Salem Advocate's Bar Association v. Union of India, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530 that application for additional evidence under Section 151 of the Code can be allowed only if plaintiff is able to show that the documents were not in his knowledge and that he could not produce the same at the time evidence was being led, despite due diligence. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: Civil Revision No.922 of 2011 -4- “14......On a party satisfying the Court that after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the party was leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just.” Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) February 09, 2011 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No