C. R. No. 2591 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2591 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 14, 2009 Jaswant Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Mohinder Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff no.1 assailing order dated 13.03.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahr thereby dismissing application moved by plaintiffs (petitioner and proforma respondents no.7 and 8 herein) for additional evidence. The plaintiffs moved application for producing certain jamabandis in evidence. The prayer has been declined because Khasra numbers mentioned in the said jamabandis for 1937-38, 1941-42 and 1945- 46 do not pertain to the Khasra numbers of the suit land pleaded in the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that mere delay is not sufficient to reject an application for additional evidence. C. R. No. 2591 of 2009 2 However, this proposition of law does not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present case. In the first instance, the plaintiffs have not explained any reason as to why they could not produce the proposed additional evidence at the appropriate stage and secondly, these documents are irrelevant because these are not connected with the suit land. In order to connect the aforesaid jamabandis with the suit land, the plaintiffs admitted before the trial court that after the instant application for additional evidence is allowed, they would file another application for additional evidence to seek preparation and production of excerpt. It shows the real intention of the plaintiffs. At late stage, two applications moved by the plaintiffs for amendment of plaint have already been allowed and thereafter the plaintiffs came up with the instant application for additional evidence and admittedly, if this application is allowed, then the plaintiffs would move another application for additional evidence for excerpt to make these jamabandis relevant. There is no prayer for producing excerpt in the instant application and in the absence of excerpt, jamabandis sought to be placed on record as additional evidence are irrelevant being not connected with the suit land. In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. May 14, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE