C. R. No. 1958 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1958 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 07, 2010 Vipan Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Smt. Rajwati and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Pt. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 8477-C-II of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for. C. M. No. 8478-C-II of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : Defendant no.2 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 11.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, thereby dismissing application moved by the petitioner- defendant no.2 for additional evidence. Respondents no.1 and 2 herein have filed suit against proforma respondent no.3 and the petitioner herein for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.08.2000, executed by defendant no.1 in favour of C. R. No. 1958 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the plaintiffs. Defendant no.1 Rajinder Singh controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs and inter alia pleaded that he had sold the suit land to defendant no.2 vide registered sale deed dated 15.04.2004. Similar stand has been taken by defendant no.2. After the parties led their evidence, defendant no.2 moved application (Annexure P-4) for additional evidence alleging that defendant no.1 had filed criminal complaint and civil suit against plaintiffs and others, which were not in the knowledge of defendant no.2, when he led his evidence, but now, he has come to know of the said litigation. Accordingly, copy of said complaint along with other documents therein including the judgment and copy of civil suit, written statement, counter claim and reply and judgment in the civil suit are sought to be produced by additional evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The petitioner moved application (Annexure P-4) for additional evidence after evidence of the parties had been concluded. The petitioner alleged that he was not earlier aware of the criminal complaint and the civil suit filed by defendant no.1 against plaintiffs and others. However, learned trial court, in the impugned order, specifically observed that defendant no.2 has not disclosed the source of his knowledge of the aforesaid litigation as to how and when he acquired the same. In spite thereof, even in the instant revision petition, the said fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner. It is thus apparent that the petitioner has only devised a ruse and excuse to lead additional evidence, but otherwise, he was aware of the aforesaid litigation. In addition to the aforesaid, neither defendant no.1 not the plaintiffs have been confronted with the aforesaid documents, which are sought to be produced by additional evidence. Without confronting them, the documents cannot be used in evidence because the concerned parties have to be confronted with the said documents. C. R. No. 1958 of 2010 (O&M) 3 There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. No ground for permitting the petitioner to lead proposed additional evidence is made out. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 07, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE