IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6398 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.12.2009 Parminder Pal Singh and another .....Petitioners versus Manjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Mandeep K.Sajjan, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby an application for additional evidence moved by the petitioner- appellants, has been dismissed. The petitioners filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.7.1999. They are said to have paid the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- to the prospective vendor. Their suit was partly decreed by the Civil Court as it granted alternative relief of recovery of the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- but declined to grant the main relief, namely, the specific performance of the agreement to sell. C.R. No.6398 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, they moved an application to lead additional evidence to produce one Surinder Pal Singh Chawla, Stamp Vendor at Ferozepur City alongwith records regarding purchase of the stamp papers bearing No.3551 dated 15.6.1999 by the vendor. The said application has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 9.10.2009, giving rise to this revision petition. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Rastogi versus Ashish Kumar and another, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 642 and decision of this Court in Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt versus Shri Neeko, 2004 (3) RCR (Civil) 506, it is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that the First Appellate Court ought to have accepted the prayer for additional evidence as it goes to the root of the matter and would enable the First Appellate Court to arrive at a just conclusion. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The additional evidence can be permitted to be led even at the appellate stage provided that either it was not in the knowledge of the party or could not be produced despite due diligence. It is not the case of the petitioners that the additional evidence now sought to be produced was not in their knowledge. Similarly, there is no explanation as to why the said Stamp Vendor could not be produced earlier before the trial Court in affirmative or in rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff to prove that the stamp papers were actually purchased by Pahara C.R. No.6398 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Singh, the alleged prospective vendor. In Radhey Sham Rastogi's case (supra), it has been ruled that in a case where the eviction of the tenant has been sought on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition, it would have been appropriate for the appellate court or the High Court to permit to lead additional evidence comprising an independent Engineer as a Local Commissioner. Similarly, in Punjab Wakf Board's case (supra), this Court held that merely delay in filing the application for additional evidence cannot be fatal. The facts, as noticed above, of the case in hand are entirely different as the petitioners have failed to satisfy the basic ingredients which could enable the First Appellate Court to provide an opportunity to a party to lead additional evidence. No case to interfere with the impugned order is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 01-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE