Civil Revision No. 6721 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6721 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 04.11.2011 Krishan Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought by Krishan Kumar, one of the land owners under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 18.10.2011(Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby his application for permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. Some land of the petitioner and others was acquired in pursuance of a notification issued under the provisions of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 20.06.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 28.11.2008 and thereafter the petitioner sought reference under section 18 of the Act. The petitioner led his evidence and after the evidence of the respondents had been over, the petitioner filed an application for additional evidence. Civil Revision No. 6721 of 2011 --2-- In the application, the petitioner claimed that his evidence was closed on 04.08.2011 and on that day, two witnesses were examined, but the remaining witnesses could not be examined as they were not served and the evidence was closed. He has further claimed that the respondents produced three witnesses in their evidence. According to the petitioner, Yogesh Mehra, RW-2 denied the factual position of the acquired land in his statement and the petitioner wanted to prove those facts, which have been denied by Yogesh Mehra, RW-2 because that would prove the fact that development has been there in the vicinity of the acquired land. It is also claimed that for this purpose, Patwari Halwa and Senior Manager of HSIIDC (IA) Rai are required to be summoned. It is also averred that in cross-examination of Yogesh Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner could not put questions regarding allotment of land on profit basis. Hence, for proper adjudication of the matter, the application is prayed to be allowed. The application is opposed by the State claiming that the petitioner himself closed his evidence on 04.08.2011 and even after the same, he sought adjournments for producing documentary evidence. It is averred that the application has been filed at the time when the case was fixed for final arguments and it has been done with the sole purpose of prolonging the proceedings. It is lastly averred that the petitioner cannot be allowed to fill up lacuna left in his case by way of additional evidence. Civil Revision No. 6721 of 2011 --3-- Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dismissed the application. I have heard Shri Navneet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Yogesh Mehra, RW-2 denied some factual position. According to him, in the vicinity of the land in question, State has sold the plots on profit basis. According to him, the State has awarded compensation in a sum below Rs.20,00,000/- per acre while the land in question was fetching more than one crore per acre in the open market at the time of acquisition. He has further submitted that these witnesses were necessary to be examined and although, they were summoned, yet they could not be examined on account of inadvertence. He has submitted that the petitioner can never be accused of making attempt to prolong the litigation because by early disposal of the case, he will be benefited. He has , therefore, submitted that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. One thing is clear on the record that the evidence of the petitioner has not been closed by the court. The oral evidence was closed by the petitioner on 04.08.2011 and thereafter opportunities were availed by the petitioner to lead documentary evidence. If the witnesses sought to be examined by way of additional evidence had been summoned before closing the evidence of the petitioner, then it can be said that the Civil Revision No. 6721 of 2011 --4-- petitioner is playing the game of hide and seek. If the statements of these witnesses had been so relevant, the evidence should not have been closed without examining them. It only appears that facing the uphill task in his claim on account of the statements of Yogesh Mehra and others, the petitioner has thought of leading some more evidence. Additional evidence cannot be allowed to be led in routine. It can be led only when a party is pursuing his claim with utmost diligence and despite exercise of the same, he could not bring the evidence, sought to be produced as additional evidence at the time he was leading his evidence. If that evidence was not within his knowledge despite exercise of due diligence at the time he was leading his evidence, still additional evidence can be allowed. Here the petitioner claims that this evidence was within his knowledge. He had summoned the witnesses but still he closed the evidence. What was the inadvertence in closing his evidence has not come on record. The additional evidence, moreover, cannot be led for the reason that land in the vicinity of the land acquired had been fetching more than one crore per acre as price in open market while the State awarded compensation below Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. In these circumstances, I find no reason to differ from learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat in the matter of decision of the prayer for additional evidence. The revision petition,therefore, lacks in merit and is dismissed. 04.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE