43 1 Civil Revision No494 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH eea Date of Decision2 March 57 1 20110 1 Civil Revision No494 of 2011 0 Tikka Amar Singh Petitioner I VERSUS C5 I Mohan Singh and others Respondents Z CORAM HONBLE MRUSTICE MOHINDER PAL l Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see I the judgment7 2 To be referred to the Reporters or not7 3e Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 Z 1b Presentl MrRaj Kumar Rana Advocate for the petitioner Z Mr JS Chandail Advocate for respondentsNos29 and 10e tl MsKanwauit Kau Advocate for Mr Vikas Chatrath Advocate for respondentNo MrMe Bakshi official of Oriental Bank of Commerce espondent No7 MOHINDER PAL J The petitionerolaintiff fiied Civil Suit No36 dated 222 1999 against the respondentsdefendants for declaration and mandatoryinjunction in respectof the property in dispute which Rawat Seema 2013.01.16 16: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44 0 2 Civil Revision N00494 of 2011 1 was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgmentand decree dated 302010 went in appeal against the said judgmentand decree passedby the trial Court before the Iower appellateCourt In appeal before the Iower appellateCourt the petitionerplaintiffmoved an applicationunder Order 41 Rule 27 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for Ieadingadditional evidence This 0 applicationof the petitionerolaintiffwas dismissed by the Iower I appellateCourt vide order dated 30112010 which IS impugned C5 by way of filing this revision petition After hearing the Iearned counsel for the parties and Z perusingthe records of the case and the impugnedorder I do C not see any reason warrantinginterference inthe impugnedorder I passed by the Iower appellateCourt Ill exercise of the revisional jurisdictionof this Court The instant suit was filed by Z the petitionerplaintiff on 2221999 The parties are thUS in iitigation for the Iast more than twelve years Request of the 7 Z petitionerolaintifffor producingon record the documents which tl are now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was rejected by the trial Court However the said order passed by the trial Court declining the prayer of for Ieading additional evidence was not chaIlengedby the which had attained finality It appears that the plaintiffoetitionerwas adoptingdilly dallyingtactics to prevent final decision in appeal preferred by him against the judgmentand decree passed by the trial Court The appellantCourt was under the circumstances justified in declining Rawat Seema 2013.01.16 16: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 45 2 8e Civil Revision N0494 of 2011 the prayer of the for Ieadingadditional evidence Dismissede C PALI March 2011 JUDGE 1 ak 1 0 C3 C5 I Z r I Z a Z Cm J Rawat Seema 2013.01.16 16: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document