Civil Revision No.7833 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7833 of 2011 Date of Decision : 19.12.2011 Sat Parkash .......Petitioner Versus Satya Wati and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 12.12.2011, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for adducing additional evidence. The learned counsel states that the fact regarding the date of registration of sale-deed was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and it has come in the knowledge of the petitioner on 02.11.2011, during the deposition of Sandeep Saini, DW1, the Registry Clerk of Sub Registrar, Jagadhri. He further states that the property was purchased by the father of the petitioner. The respondent, who is none other but the brother of the plaintiff-petitioner, had no means to pay 1 Civil Revision No.7833 of 2011 the sale consideration at the time when the property in dispute was purchased in 1980. There is a finding by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff-petitioner was not diligent in examining the facts carefully which were already in existence prior to the institution of present suit by the plaintiff. However, keeping in view the fact that for the first time, the date of registration of sale deed has surfaced in the statement of DW1, Sandeep Saini, recorded on 02.11.2011, therefore, the petitioner deserves one more opportunity to lead additional evidence in this regard. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure P-6) is set aside; and the petitioner is granted one opportunity to adduce additional evidence. However, the same shall be subject to the payment of `20,000/- as costs. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 19.12.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 2