Civil Revision No. 3250 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3250 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.05.2011 Hassan Mohamad ......Petitioner Versus Rafiq Mohamad and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the use of the tube well in question. The petitioner- defendant No.1 had moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence. Vide impugned order dated 22.04.2011, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the present petition by defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Now the case is listed before the trial Court for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff. By way of additional evidence petitioner wants to prove on record the original receipt Nos.376 (2), 411 and 498 regarding electricity connection No. REP-35. The photocopies of the said receipts were produced in evidence as Mark A, B and D at the time of examination of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was Civil Revision No. 3250 of 2011 -2- required to produce the original receipts at the time of his examination. However, at that time, the petitioner had produced the photocopies of the receipts on record as Mark A, B and D. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence as the documents now sought to be exhibited were already in the knowledge of the petitioner and for the reasons best known to the petitioner he had only produced photocopies of the same. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 17 , 2011 Jyoti 1