C.R No.1129 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.1129 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 09.3.2011. Harbans Singh .............Petitioner v Baljinder Singh and another ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Sanjay Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J C.M.No.6505-CII of 2011 Application is allowed. Filing of certified copy of P.4 is dispensed with and true translated copy of the same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.1129 of 2011 By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.2.2011 (P.3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala whereby his application for placing on record the compromise dated 2.7.1996, jamabandi for the year 2003-04, copy of judgment and decree dated 17.9.1990 and mutation No.458 for C.R No.1129 of 2011 #2# exhibiting and reading the same in evidence has been dismissed. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit No.280-CS dated 1.10.2007 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff over the suit land described in the head note. During the pendency of the suit, an application dated 11.2.2011 (P.2) was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for additional evidence. Upon notice, reply to the application was filed opposing the contents of the same. After hearing both the sides, the application was dismissed. Hence the present petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it was only due to inadvertence on the part of the counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner that the documents in question could not be exhibited on the case file at the relevant time. It is further argued that no prejudice will be caused to the opposite side in case the prayer of the application is allowed as these documents are very much necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy. Admittedly and undisputedly all these documents, which are sought to be exhibited were in existence at the time of filing of the civil suit and the plaintiff-petitioner was having the full knowledge of the same but the blame is being shifted upon the counsel, who is representing him before the learned trial Court. No doubt, ordinarily C.R No.1129 of 2011 #3# the parties should not suffer on account of the omission on the part of their counsel but at the same time, it cannot be accepted in routine that for every lapse, the parties will come at any point of time and will put the clock back to fill up the lacuna in his/her case. In the present case, the evidence of both the parties has already been concluded and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence if any and arguments, when the application was moved for placing on record certain documents, which could have been done at the relevant time when the evidence of the petitioner was led in affirmative. Learned trial Court, in my opinion, has rightly passed the impugned order as the plaintiff-petitioner has not exercised any due diligence in the matter. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no illegality or perversity can be found in the impugned order dated 12.2.2011 (P.3) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala, which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 09.3.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge