Civil Revision No. 2666 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2666 of 2011 Date of Decision: 22.7.2011 *** Dinesh Kumar @ Dharambir .. Petitioner Vs. Kali Ram & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The application of the petitioner-plaintiff-appellant for leading additional evidence has been dismissed vide order dated 21.3.2011, by the appellate Court, which has necessitated him to file the instant revision petition. Heard. Learned counsel has contended that the application for additional evidence can be allowed at any stage and the Court below must have allowed the application. No doubt the application for leading additional evidence can be allowed at any stage, but the same cannot be allowed in a routine manner. The aforesaid application was filed at the appellate stage, after the petitionezar having lost in the civil suit. It is evident from the perusal of impugned order that during trial such an application was filed by the plaintiff, but that was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the plaintiff failed to get any relief even from this Court. Thus, to wriggle out of the same the plaintiff filed the same at the appellate stage. Even at the time when the appeal was filed, no such application for additional evidence was filed, but later after a lapse of one and a half years, Civil Revision No. 2666 of 2011 2 he filed the same. It was not even shown that despite exercise of due diligence the plaintiff could not produce the same earlier when his evidence was going on. Finding that the petitioner is dillydallying the matter, his application was rightly dismissed. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 22, 2011 Jiten