Civil Revision No.4509 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4509 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 22, 2010 Ram Singh ….Petitioner Versus Pohap Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plaintiff’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 05.06.2010, whereby his application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of instant application he sought to place on record the certified copies of the revenue record and he was not to lead any other evidence. However, the evidence sought to be placed has not been allowed on the ground that the aforesaid evidence should have been produced in the affirmative evidence and the same cannot be produced in rebuttal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the aforesaid view taken by the trial Court was wrong as the petitioner has not sought any evidence to be adduced on record by way of rebuttal but had prayed that he be allowed to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel has further argued that the authenticity of additional evidence sought to be produced is not in doubt therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and petitioner is entitled to lead additional evidence. - Civil Revision No.4509 of 2010 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the case is at the fag end and fixed for rebuttal & arguments. The evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was to the knowledge of the petitioner from the very beginning, but the same has not been produced by him on the record while leading evidence in the affirmative for the reasons best known to him. In fact, no ground for leading additional evidence is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. Nothing has been pleaded in the application for leading additional evidence regarding the relevancy of the document sought to be placed on record of the case. The petitioner has failed to show any reasonable grounds that the documents which he wants to produce at this belated stage were not produced earlier after due diligence. Thus, application filed by the petitioner which is highly belated is not maintainable. Thus, I find no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. Dismissed. 22.07.2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vcgarg JUDGE -