CR-4885-2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130 CR-4885-2023 (O&M) Date of decision :- 14.07.2026 Raj Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Sulekh Chand .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Vishva Nath Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Kamboj, Advocate and Mr. Manvir Singh Kamboj, Advocate for the respondent. **** AMARJOT BHATTI J. 1. Petitioner Raj Kumar has filed present civil revision against impugned order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby application filed by petitioner/defendant for adducing additional evidence has been erroneously declined in Civil Suit No. 151 of 2019, titled “Sulekh Chand versus Raj Kumar”. 2. Learned counsel representing petitioner/defendant argued that respondent/plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.03.2018 regarding 08 Kanal 0 Marlas of land situated in village Kanalsi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar as detailed therein as per Jamabandi for the year 2014-15, with consequential relief of LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4885-2023 (O&M) -2- permanent injunction. Said civil suit was contested by petitioner/defendant by filing detailed written statement. Copies of plaint and written statement are Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively. During the pendency of said suit, petitioner/defendant filed application (Annexure P-4) seeking permission to lead additional evidence by producing certified copies of mutation numbers 720, 721 and 725. As per his knowledge, oral evidence of petitioner/defendant was closed by previous counsel on 09.05.2023. On 12.05.2023, he came to know that on the same day, documentary evidence of petitioner/defendant was also closed by Court order. Therefore, aforesaid documents i.e. copies of mutation numbers could not be produced which were material for just and proper adjudication of the case. Application for additional evidence (Annexure P-4) was contested by respondent/plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P-5) and after hearing both the sides, learned trial Court declined the application vide impugned order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P-6). Along with present civil revision, typed copies of mutations are annexed as Annexure P-7. It is prayed that petitioner/defendant may be allowed to lead additional evidence subject to payment of cost. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent/plaintiff pointed out that petitioner/defendant had availed numerous opportunities to lead his evidence. When no evidence was led, same was closed. It is not the case that proper opportunity was not granted to petitioner/defendant to conclude his evidence. Case is at final stage. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of case, application seeking permission to lead additional evidence was rightly declined by the trial Court LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4885-2023 (O&M) -3- by passing detailed order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) and same does not require any interference. 4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. Admittedly, trial in this case is at fag end. Respondent/plaintiff had already concluded his evidence, whereas, petitioner/defendant also availed numerous opportunities to conclude evidence and finally, learned counsel closed the oral evidence on 09.05.2023. In fact, learned trial Court closed his evidence on the same day. Petitioner/defendant had already availed sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence. Thereafter, petitioner/defendant filed application (Annexure P-4) seeking permission to lead additional evidence for placing on record certified copies of mutation numbers 720, 721 and 725. Admittedly, present suit filed by respondent/plaintiff is seeking possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.03.2018 along with relief of permanent injunction (Annexure P-1). Petitioner/defendant was required to explain the relevancy of copies of mutations for final adjudication of matter in controversy. In the application itself, no such ground is taken. There is no explanation why said record was not produced earlier when petitioner/defendant had availed numerous opportunities to conclude his evidence. 5. In the light of aforesaid factual position, learned trial Court rightly concluded that application seeking permission to lead additional evidence was without merits and as a result, same was dismissed. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to interfere in impugned order dated 08.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4885-2023 (O&M) -4- Jagadhri (Annexure P-6) and same is, accordingly upheld. Consequently, finding no merits in present civil revision, same is, accordingly dismissed. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly. (AMARJOT BHATTI) JUDGE 14.07.2026 lalit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No LALIT SHARMA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document