Civil Revision No. 6368 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6368 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 18th, 2011 Dhara Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus Smt. Sharda .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The plaintiffs have brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.9.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, vide which application of the plaintiffs for permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. The plaintiffs have sought permission to adduce additional evidence in the shape of jamabandis for the years 1974-75, 1986- 87, 1991-92, 1996-97 and 2001-02, registered Will dated 8.8.1988 and copies of judgment and decree dated 29.11.1962. The plaintiffs have claimed that they could not lead this evidence in affirmative. According to them, these documents are necessary and material for fair and just decision of the matter in controversy. It is further added that there is no possibility of fabrication of these Civil Revision No. 6368 of 2011 2 .. documents and these documents would definitely assist the court in effectively adjudicating upon the matter. Adding that the defendant shall not be prejudiced if this additional evidence is allowed, the prayer is made. The application is opposed by the defendant. According to her, the evidence sought to be led by the plaintiffs is beyond pleadings. The application is claimed to lack maintainability. It is added that the plaintiffs want to set up a new and inconsistent case by leading this evidence, which is beyond the pleadings. It is denied that the proposed additional evidence is necessary for just decision of the case. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal has dismissed the application vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed. I have heard Mr. R.S. Sihota, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.R. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. After removal of provision of Order 18 Rule 17-A from the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the additional evidence can now be allowed under the provisions of section 151 CPC. However, the party applying for permission to lead additional evidence would have to show to the court that despite exercise of due diligence, either it did not know the said evidence or it could not produce the Civil Revision No. 6368 of 2011 3 .. same at the time when it was leading its evidence. What to say of satisfying the court below of this aspect, there is not even an averment to that effect in the application (Annexure P1/A) filed by the plaintiffs for permission to lead evidence. The plaintiffs have challenged the decree dated 19.5.1988 passed in civil suit titled Smt. Sharda Vs. Dhara Singh etc. on the grounds of impersonation, non registration, collusion and fraud. The fact of execution of Will dated 8.8.1988 is no were mentioned in the pleadings. The basic principle governing the scope of evidence in a civil suit is that it cannot be led beyond the pleadings. So, for this reason also, the additional evidence could not be allowed to be led. Nothing becomes apparent on the record as to how the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence would be required by the court to effectively decide the controversy between the parties. Moreover, nothing has been mentioned in the application as to how the Will dated 8.8.1988 would be proved because it cannot be tendered in evidence notwithstanding its registration. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no fault with the impugned order and finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 18th, 2011 som