Civil Revision No. 5180 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5180 of 2008 Date of decision: 29.01.2009 Ludhiana Church Council of Pb. Synod United Church of Northern India ...Petitioner Versus Bhartiya Church Prabandhak Committee and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.K.Moudgil, Advocate for the respondent. **** S.D.ANAND, J. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the impugned application for additional evidence came to be filed after the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner had been ordered under the orders of the Court. The order regarding closure of evidence was not challenged till date and has attained finality. The petitioner had, thereafter, applied for the leave of the Court to bring the following additional evidence on record:- i) Copies of inter-partes judgment. ii) Copies of lease deeds. Civil Revision No. 5180 of 2008 -2- **** Iii) Letters addressed through defendant-respondent no.1 to the plaintiff-petitioner. iv) Minutes book of the plaintiff-petitioner v) Receipts of travelling allowance and dearness allowance received by the defendant/respondent no.1. vi) Copies of statements made by defendants/respondents. Vii) Souvenir Book of United Church of Northern India. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner does not dispute that the order directing closure of plaintiff-petitioner's evidence had attained finality, he argues that the production of the additional evidence aforementioned would enable the Court to dispose of the controversy effectually. In support of the averment, reliance is placed upon Aggarwal Cotton Waste Co. Vs. Shree Singhal Spinner Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (1) P.L.R. 781. The judgment in Aggarwal Cotton Waste Co.'s case (supra) is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case before this Court. In that case, the plaintiff had filed an application to prove the sales tax farm submitted by the defendant. That was not a case where the evidence of the applicant had been closed under the orders of the Court. It is not so in the present case. It is only judgments inter-partes which would not require formal proof and which would have a relevant bearing on the disposal of the controversy between the parties to the cause pending before the Trial Court. All other documents would require formal proof. The allowance of additional evidence qua the documents requiring formal proof would amount to negating the order (vide which the evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner had been closed) which has attained finality on account of it not Civil Revision No. 5180 of 2008 -3- **** having been challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner till date. In the light of fore-going discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit to the extent it relates to the documents other than the judgments. The petitioner-plaintiff shall produce the certified copies of inter-partes judgments on the next date of hearing. Ofcourse, it will be open to the learned Trial Court to decide upon the relevancy and admissibility thereof to the cause pending before it. The other part of the petition shall stand dismissed. The stay order dated 25.09.2008 shall stand vacated. The vacation of stay order shall be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith. January 29, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge