IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2480 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20th September, 2011 Ram Narain and others … Petitioners Versus Pryag Bansal and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.1. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present case, admittedly the suit was filed in the year 2004 and issues were drawn by the trial Court on 16th December, 2004. After the plaintiffs concluded their evidence, defendants led their evidence and the same was also closed. When the case was at the stage of arguments, an application (Annexure P-1) was filed on 29th January, 2011 stating that the sale deed dated 28th October, 1969 and mutation thereof bearing No.177 are required to be brought on record by way of additional evidence. It is stated that existence of the sale deed dated 28th October, 1969 came into the notice of the petitioners-plaintiffs only on 24th December, 2010. The trial Court held that copy of the sale deed dated 28th October, 1969 is a registered document, therefore, the same cannot escape the notice of the plaintiffs. The Court further held that the Civil Revision No.2480 of 2011 (O&M) petitioners-plaintiffs-applicants were negligent in not proving the said sale deed dated 28th October, 1969 and the subsequent mutation bearing No.771 in their evidence. The trial Court rightly came to a conclusion that no case is made out to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs because of the delay on their part. Hence, no interference is warranted in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 20, 2011 rps 2