C.R. No. 3852 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3852 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.6.2010 Pushpa Rani Bansal .......... Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Mohindergarh, vide which application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence stands declined. The petitioner after availing number of opportunities closed her evidence. Thereafter an application was moved for leading additional evidence by producing on record the receipt regarding payment of house tax, copy of assessment register and application moved for transfer of ownership qua the property in dispute. The additional evidence was said to be necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case, and necessary for the Court to decide the case effectively. The application stands declined, as the learned trial Court held, that the application for leading additional evidence was merely C.R. No. 3852 of 2010 -2- an attempt to delay the proceedings, as the additional evidence sought to be led was within the knowledge of the petitioner when she was leading evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the evidence sought to be led was necessary to prove the ownership of the petitioner, and was therefore, necessary for proper adjudication of the case and to help the Court to reach at just decision. On consideration, I find no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute, that a decree was passed in favour of the petitioner, which is under challenge. It is for the plaintiff to prove that the decree was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. In case, the plaintiff / respondent succeeds then it is immaterial whether the property in pursuance to the decree was transferred in favour of the petitioner or not, therefore, it cannot be said that the additional evidence sought to be led was necessary to arrive at just decision. The petitioner cannot claim right to lead additional evidence for producing the documents by alleging these to be necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case. It is not `disputed, that the evidence sought to be led was within the knowledge of the petitioner when she was leading evidence. No ground, therefore, is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. 28.6.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE