Civil Revision No.4894 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4894 of 2009 Date of Decision: 1.7.2010 Harnek Singh ......Petitioner Versus Balwinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Shri Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Mukund Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the trial Court on 18.8.2009, whereby an application filed by the defendant for permission to lead additional evidence was allowed. By virtue of the order impugned, the defendants were allowed to lead additional evidence so as to produce application dated 26.8.1993 filed by Nand Singh, whose estate is in dispute and the reply dated 28.8.1993 filed by the plaintiff in earlier proceedings, subject to payment of Rs.1500/- as costs. However, the trial Court declined permission to lead additional evidence to prove special power of attorney executed by Nand Singh on account of delay in seeking to produce such document. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the defendants have sought additional evidence after gross delay. Therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in permitting the defendants to lead additional evidence so as to fill up the lacunae in the case. Civil Revision No.4894 of 2009 [2] I do not any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial Court has permitted the defendants to produce the documents, which are record of the earlier Court proceedings. The plaintiff has been ordered to be compensated for the delay in producing such documents. It is well settled that the costs are the panacea for delay in the matter of procedure. Therefore, the learned trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, while permitting the defendants to lead additional evidence, which is relevant for the decision of the case. It may be further noticed that in pursuance of the order passed by the learned trial Court, the additional evidence was produced by the defendant on 24.8.2009, whereas the revision petition was filed before this Court on 27.8.2009. Since the evidence has already been produced, therefore, it is an additional factor for not interfering in the order passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] 01-07-2010 JUDGE ds