Civil Revision No.1178/2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1178/2011 Date of decision: 23.2.2011 Rohtash .............Petitioner v Sohan Lal ..............Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the the impugned order dated 22.11.2010 (P.2) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Hisar whereby his application (P.5) for leading additional evidence has been dismissed with special costs of Rs.500/-. Brief facts of the case are that an agreement dated 8.1.2006 was entered into between the parties for sale of land measuring 16 Kanal 3 marla located at Hisar for a sum of Rs.34.5 lac per acre and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10 lac as earnest money whereas another sum of Rs.10 lac was to be paid on 8.5.2006 and date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 9.11.2006. But prior to 8.5.2006, the petitioner came to know that land in question was under acquisition by the Civil Revision No.1178/2011 #2# Haryana Government for development of certain Sectors in Hisar City, however this fact was not disclosed by the defendant-respondent to the plaintiff. On appraisal of the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff-petitioner was given an assurance that the defendant-respondent will do the needful and get the land in question released from acquisition proceedings on or before 9.11.2006 but till the date of filing of the civil suit, the defendant-respondent could not succeed in getting the land released from acquisition and in these circumstances, the plaintiff- petitioner filed a civil suit No.411-C dated 14.12.2007 against the defendant-respondent for recovery of Rs.20 lacs along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 8.1.2006 till final realization. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendant-respondent, who filed written statement and resisted the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner. After considering the pleadings of both the parties, issues were framed. Both the parties led their evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments and at this stage, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application (P.5) for leading additional evidence but the same was dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 22.11.2010 (P.2), hence the present petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the plaintiff-petitioner entered into a similar agreement in respect of similar land in the same area as in the present case with one Lilu Ram and Civil Revision No.1178/2011 #3# others on 4.1.2006 and also filed another civil suit titled as Rohtash v. Lilu, which is pending in the court of Ms. Anshu Shukla, learned Civil Judge, Hisar. In that case also, the land was under acquisition prior to 4.1.2006. It is further submitted that in that suit (filed against Lilu Ram etc), the plaintiff had got produced copy of certain documents as described in paragraph 6 of his application for additional evidence and the plaintiff as well as his counsel were under the impression that both the civil suits shall be consolidated and decided by one and the same court and as such these documents could not be produced. It is further submitted that the documents, which are sought to be produced, are very much necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter in controversy and in case the application is not allowed, the case of the plaintiff-petitioner would be materially affected and thus causing grave injustice to him. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court reported as Hans Raj v. Surinder Kaur and others, 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 377 P&H. A perusal of paragraph 4 of the present revision petition reveals that after framing of the issues, both the parties led their evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments, when the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application (P.5) for leading additional evidence. Merely by alleging that another civil suit is pending against one Lilu Ram etc will not entitle the plaintiff-petitioner to lead such additional evidence at this stage in the form of 17 (seventeen) documents. Admittedly, the agreement with Lilu Ram etc was entered Civil Revision No.1178/2011 #4# on 4.1.2006 whereas in the present case, the date of agreement is 8.1.2006. Even the parties in both the suits are different although the plaintiff may be the one and that the land in both the suits is also different. Needless to say that a civil suit is always decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. In the present case, the plaintiff has not brought on record the alleged documents mentioned in para 6 at the relevant time for the reasons best known to him. If at this stage, the application for additional evidence is allowed that will materially prejudice the cause of the defendant-respondent. The judgment cited by the learned counsel is not helpful to the case of the petitioner as in that case, the defendant-petitioner sought the production of two documents by way of additional evidence, which were the part of judicial record in the earlier litigation, however, in the present case, the plaintiff-petitioner is seeking to produce on record 17 (seventeen) documents, which are yet to be proved when the case is fixed for rebuttal and arguments. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 22.11.2010, which warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 23.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge