Civil Revision No. 5742 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5742 of 2011 Date of Decision: 20.9.2011 Tai Pan Traders Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Mann Cardiac and Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. S.S. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved against the impugned order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, whereby it has declined the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff for leading additional evidence. In the impugned order, the trial Judge noticed the fact that the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 4.6.2009 and thereafter the defendant has closed its evidence on 6.11.2009. According to the counsel, an application for leading additional evidence was filed on 10.10.2010. This Court is of the view that not only the application for leading additional evidence has been filed at a highly belated stage, but it is an attempt to fill up the lacuna. By way of this application, the petitioner/plaintiff intended to examine an official of the New India Assurance Company Limited to demolish the denial made by the defendant in the cross-examination. It is not denied by learned counsel Civil Revision No. 5742 of 2011 2 for the petitioner that it was for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was owner of the Car, service whereof was undertaken by the petitioner/plaintiff. The trial Judge, while declining the application, has observed as under:- “8...The additional evidence can be allowed only in a situation if at the time of adducing evidence, a party could not adduce the same despite due diligence or the said evidence was not in the notice of the party and it came to notice of a party at later stage. In the present application, it is not the case of applicant that he could not produce the evidence despite due diligence. The stand of the defendant was also clear to the plaintiff as the defendant has denied the ownership in the written statement...” Once, in the written statement, the defendant has denied ownership of the Car, the plaintiff was aware, at that stage, that he was to prove that ownership of the Car vested with the defendants. Thus, it has been rightly held that the petitioner was not diligent enough to lead evidence when the opportunity was available. Thus, the application for leading additional evidence has been rightly declined by the trial Court. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 20, 2011 “DK”