IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 602 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 29, 2010 Ram Rattan. … Petitioner Versus Kishan Lal and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. A plea filed by the plaintiff – petitioner, to obtain the leave of the learned Trial Court to adduce additional evidence (certain rent receipts), was negatived by the learned Trial Court by observing that the plaintiff – petitioner had already availed of eight opportunities to adduce his evidence and at no earlier stage did he make a mention of the receipts etc. which were proposed to be brought on record in additional evidence. It was further noticed, in the context, that the plaintiff – petitioner had himself denied the factum of receipts in the course of the cross examination. The learned Trial Court felt that allowance of the additional evidence plea would amount to C.R. No. 602 of 2010 de novo trial of the case and that it would enable the petitioner herein to fill up the lacuna. Each item of the foundational premise of the impugned order is well reasoned. A party which had denied the factum of the proposed documentation in the course of cross examination itself, cannot be heard to request the Court for reception thereof by means of additional evidence. A plea of the indicated category can also not be entertained after the party applying therefor has availed of more than adequate opportunity for concluding its evidence. Apart therefrom, the learned Trial Court had correctly observed that the relevant application did not, at all, indicate when exactly did the facts come to the knowledge of the plaintiff – petitioner. The petition shall stand dismissed in limine. January 29, 2010 (S.D. Anand) vkd Judge 2