IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6090 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 08, 2011 Brahma Devi .. Petitioner Vs. Devi Ram and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4. None for respondent No.2. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner- plaintiff (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') has assailed the order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridabad refusing to allow the application for additional evidence. The petitioner, by way of an application for additional evidence, wanted to prove the signatures of the respondent No.1 Devi Ram (herein referred as, 'the respondent') on the alleged agreement dated 23.6.2000 by comparing the same with the signatures of the aforesaid respondent on the power of attorney, written statement and his statement. The respondent had submitted the reply to the application stating that the petitioner had already denied her signatures on the agreement which was in her knowledge. The suit remained pending since 2002, therefore, the present application appears to have been filed just to fill the lacuna and delay the adjudication of the case. Arguments heard. Record perused. Notwithstanding the fact that the court has inbuilt power to permit parties to lead additional evidence where it is really essential for just decision of the case or to resolve the actual controversy between the parties. But before such application is allowed, the respondent has to establish by advancing genuine grounds inviting the court to extend its discretion in his favour. The instant case for specific performance on the basis of the Civil Revision No. 6090 of 2010 -2- *** agreement to sell was filed in the year 2002. The petitioner closed her evidence on 9.5.2008 and the evidence of the respondent was closed by order of the court on 26.7.2010. The case is at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, when the application for additional evidence was abruptly filed on 10.8.2010. Under these circumstances, no due diligence could be inferred on the part of the petitioner as the petitioner knowing fully well about the defence set up by the defendants led sufficient to prove the execution of the agreement. The trial court has taken right view of the matter that the application has been filed just to gain time. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. February 08, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge