IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3165 of 2009. Date of Decision : 10.2.2010. Bhajan Singh & others ......Petitioners Versus Karnail Singh ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J. This defendant's revision is directed against the order dated April 23rd, 2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, whereby, plaintiff-respondent was allowed to prove a report dated April 11th, 2007 of Superintendent of Police Head-quarters, Jalandhar by way of additional evidence. The ground pleaded in the application was that the said report came to the notice of the plaintiff-respondent when the Clerk of the office of Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar appeared into the witness box. So, the report could not be produced at the time the plaintiff was leading evidence. The solitary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court fell in error in allowing the application for additional evidence because Order 18 Rule 17-A of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC') which provided for leading of additional evidence has been deleted by amendment Act of 2002 and as such, there is no provision in the CPC to allow the party to lead additional evidence. Civil Revision No. 3165 of 2009. (2) The submission is untenable. Deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC does not dis-entitle production of evidence at a later stage. 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. The law existing before the introduction of the amendment, that is, 1976 would stand restored. It has been so held in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 . In view of this, no illegality or irregularity is discernible in the order passed by the trial Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 10.2.2010. som