Civil Revision No.549/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.549/2011 Date of decision:1.2.2011. Mann Singh .............Petitioner v Gurdev Kaur and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Jagjit Gill,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J(Oral). Plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 3.1.2011 (P1) whereby his application for additional evidence has been dismissed. Facts in brief are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he alongwith proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land situated within the revenue estate of Village Gadrana, being the Legal Representatives of late Mukand Singh son of Bhag Singh and mutation no.5436 sanctioned on 3.6.2006 relating to the inheritance of late Mukand Singh in favour of defendants/respondents 1 and 2 is wrong and not binding on their rights. As per the plaint, defendants/respondents 1 and 2 are the alleged wife and son of late Mukand Singh whereas plaintiffs are brothers of Mukand Singh. The issues were framed on 17.11.2008. The plaintiff's oral evidence in affirmative was closed on 15.9.2010 and he Civil Revision No.549/2011 2 was permitted to tender some documents on 22.9.2010. Thereafter the defendants led their evidence and their evidence was concluded and case was at the stage of arguments and rebuttal when the application dated 15.12.2010 under Section 151 CPC for placing certain documents on record was moved. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had applied under the Right to Information Act and had been supplied documents relating to voter list for the year 2007 of Village Dayalpura Mirja,Distt.Bathinda, ration card of Village Gadrana and information regarding the date of birth of of Atma Singh-defendant/respondent no.2. He submits that the aforesaid documents were earlier not in the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner and therefore, could not be led in evidence in affirmative. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I find no merit in his plea. Once the evidence of the petitioner has been closed and even the evidence of the defendants concluded, in my opinion, certain lapses/lacuna which may have emerged in the evidence of the petitioner cannot be at such stage permitted to be filled up by allowing the petitioner/plaintiff to lead additional evidence, moreso, when such document could have been easily obtained and led in evidence in affirmative with due diligence. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. 1.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge