CR No. 6311 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6311 of 2010 Date of Decision : 28.09.2010 Shri Guru Ravi Dass Mandir Parbhandak Sabha (Regd.) through its President Sh. Jindal Pal .......... Petitioner Versus All India Adi Dharam Mission duly registered under the Societies Registration Act through B.R. Gera & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. O.P. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ludhiana vide which application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading evidence stands rejected. The plaintiff / respondents had filed a suit in the year 1985 against the defendant / respondents. After prolonging the case for almost 25 years, evidence of the defendants was ordered to be closed on 24.1.2008 by Court order. The petitioner herein thereafter moved an application for substitution of their name in place of defendants No. 4 to 13 being CR No. 6311 of 2010 -2- elected office bearer of the Mission. At the time of making the application, specific statement was made by the petitioner, that it will not file separate written statement, and will not lead any further evidence except in rebuttal. In view of the statement made by the petitioners, their application for transposing them as defendants was allowed. When the case was at the final stage, the application was moved by the petitioners to lead evidence, to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff, in view of the fact that at the time of making statement it was said that the petitioner will not lead any evidence except rebuttal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was word 'rebuttal' means in affirmative, as defendants to be petitoners were not to lead evidence in rebuttal. The learned trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned trial Court wrongly held, that the provisions of additional evidence was repealed, therefore, the application could not be allowed. The Court in the interest of justice can exercise powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow a party to lead additional evidence, if the learned Court is satisfied, that the party applying for additional evidence could not lead evidence with due diligence, or the evidence was not within the knowledge of the party, or that it was necessary for adjudication of the case. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner CR No. 6311 of 2010 -3- can not be accepted. The order has to be given true meanings. When evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be closed by order of the Court, it is not permissible for the petitioner to lead evidence either by way of additional evidence or rebuttal evidence. The punitive order passed by the learned Court, can not be allowed to be overcome by way of additional evidence, as attempted. Though, the learned trial Court was not correct in holding that in view of the deletion of Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure no additional evidence was permissible, as the jurisdiction can be exercised under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Still the learned Court has given valid reasons for not allowing the application. Once the undertaking was given at the time of moving the application for substitution, that the parties would not lead evidence, it was not open at this stage, to claim that the petitioner wanted to lead additional evidence, to rebut the evidence led by the opposite party. The order passed by the learned trial Court is in consonance with law, which does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 28.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE