C.R.No.2488 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2488 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Balwinder Bhanwara and others ….Petitioners Vs. Harpreet Singh Oberoi and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. A.K. Kalsy, Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiffs-Petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.1.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana whereby their application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a Civil Suit No.233 dated 10.9.2008 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from raising any type of construction and making encroachment on the property shown as red in the site plan, which is allegedly being used by the plaintiffs and the defendants as passage for the ingress and out-gress. Upon notice, the defendants-respondents filed written statement by opposing the claim of the plaintiffs-petitioners and after considering pleadings of both the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial Court and thereafter both the parties led their evidence. At this stage, the application for additional evidence was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners on C.R.No.2488 of 2011 #2# 21.1.2011. Upon notice, the defendants-respondents filed reply and opposed the same and inter alia submitted that such application for additional evidence is not maintainable at this stage. After considering submissions of both the parties, learned trial Court has dismissed the application, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite due diligence the evidence, which is sought to be produced by way of an additional evidence could not be brought on record and the same is very much material for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. He prays that the impugned order deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court is not persuaded with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly in this case, the issues were framed on 23.10.2008 and the plaintiffs concluded their evidence on 19.3.2010. The evidence of defendants-respondents has also been concluded and the case was fixed for arguments and rebuttal, if any and at this stage, the application for additional evidence was filed on 21.1.2011. The suit is for permanent injunction and the main issue is as under: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as has been prayed for?OPP” A perusal of issue referred above clearly reveals that it is/was for the plaintiffs to prove the issue by leading cogent evidence at the appropriate time. The evidence, which is sought to be led as additional evidence is not at all permissible at such belated stage as the plaintiffs- petitioners were very much aware to produce the required evidence at the C.R.No.2488 of 2011 #3# appropriate stage. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the site plan of the municipality is already on record and the summoning of Halqa Patwari is not necessary as the suit is for permanent injunction. It seems that plaintiffs-petitioners have not shown any diligence much less to say due diligence in the matter and the application is filed just to prolong the suit. In case the prayer of the petitioners is accepted at this stage, then again defendants will require another opportunity to rebut the same and there will be no end to the present litigation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 27.1.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. April 18, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE