C.R.No.6789 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6789 of 2011 Date of decision: 07.11.2011 Gurdial Singh ... Petitioner Versus Jagjit Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. O.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by him for leading additional evidence. 2. A suit for declaration as well as for joint possession and for permanent injunction had been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner in the year 1998 and the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the order of the Court on 2.5.2007. An application had been filed by the petitioner for directing the Halqa Kanungo to prepare excerpt and produce the same in Court was disposed of as not pressed on 14.8.2007. Even thereafter, another application had been filed by the petitioner to examine Manjit Singh, Clerk of Government High School, Village Gill in order to establish 1 C.R.No.6789 of 2011 that he was son of defendant No.2. The said application was dismissed on 7.3.2011. The present application is filed with an idea to circumvent the aforesaid orders. The trial court while rejecting the application, in paras 5 to 8 had recorded as under:- “5. After considering everything, this Court has observed that plaintiff has filed the present suit on 15.1.1998 for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the house as shown red in the site plan attached situated within the lal lakir of village Chupki District Ludhiana by way of adverse possession and that decree dated 19.11.1991 titled as Jagjit Singh v. Kehar Singh in Civil Suit No.159 of 1991 passed by the Court of Ms. Harpreet Kaur, CJJD, Ludhiana is illegal, null and void, ineffective and the same is the result of fraud and misrepresentation and is liable to be set aside in respect of the above said house and below mentioned land comprised in Khewat No.59, Khatauni No.39 as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94, situated at Chupki district Ludhiana and suit for possession of the said land situated at Village Chupki District Ludhiana and suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the houses detailed above shown red in the site plan attached with the plaint and also from alienating, the above said properties in any manner whatsoever. 6. It means the plaintiff had been taking the plea that he is son of Kehar Singh; and the property in dispute is ancestral property since the very beginning, so it was duty of the plaintiff to produce all the excerpts and revenue records at the time when he was leading his evidence in affirmative for proving the 2 C.R.No.6789 of 2011 issues, the onus of which was put upon him. Perusal of file shows that in the present case, issues were framed on 14.11.1998 and the plaintiff was granted various opportunities to lead evidence finding that the plaintiff has availed number of opportunities, learned predecessor of this Court has closed the evidence of the plaintiff by order on 2.6.2007. Immediately on the next date of hearing, the plaintiff has filed this application for directing Halqa Kanungo to prepare excerpt and to produce the same in court, thereafter on 14.8.2007 the plaintiff has not pressed this application and thereafter case was fixed for evidence of the defendant. 7. Then again during pendency of case, when the defendant was leading evidence, the plaintiff has moved application for grant of permission to examine Manjit Singh Clerk of Govt. High School Village Gill in order to prove that he is son of defendant No.2. Said application had already been dismissed by learned predecessor of this Court on 7.3.2011. It means so far as the question regarding the leading evidence of excerpt and proving that he is son of Kehar Singh is concerned, this matter has already been decided and plaintiff has been declined to lead evidence on this point. 8. The other point is regarding Will alleged by plaintiff to be executed by Amar Singh brother of his father dated 8.3.1989 is concerned, this fact has not been pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint and it is settled law that the evidence cannot be led beyond the pleadings. Therefore, he has no right to lead evidence on this fact. This is the evidence which now the plaintiff wants to lead, was supposed to be led, at 3 C.R.No.6789 of 2011 the time when he was leading evidence in affirmative and present application is only to fill up the lacuna which has been left by plaintiff during leading his evidence. If this application is allowed it will amount to review of order of closure of evidence of plaintiff, which is not permissible under law.” 3. In view of the above, no ground for allowing additional evidence had been made out and the application had been rightly dismissed by the trial court. 4. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. November 07, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 4