111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5242-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.02.2025 Rajbir @ Pappu & Anr ... Petitioner(s) Versus Om Parkash & Ors ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, Advocate for the petitioners. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.08.2024 whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioners for leading additional evidence was dismissed and the order dated 13.07.2022 whereby the evidence of the defendant-petitioners was closed. 2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction averring therein that their ancestors alongwith others were Dohlidars in possession of the suit land for the last more than 100 years. Copies of the farad jamabandi for the year 1945-46, mutation No.1906, copy of shart Wajib-Ul-Arj, jamabandis for the year 1970-71, 1980-81, 1990-91, 2000-01, 2005-06 were attached with the plaint. Written statement was filed denying that the plaintiff- respondent Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of the suit land in the capacity of Dohlidars. It was further the stand taken that they had left the village about Yogesh Sharma 2025.02.17 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh CR-5242-2024 (O&M) -2- 100 years back and, hence, there was no question of possession. After the evidence of both the parties had been closed, an application was filed under Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence wherein the defendant- petitioners herein sought to tender a certified copy of shart waajib-ul-arj for the year 1879. Reply was filed to the said application and vide the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend that the said document was not within the knowledge of the defendant-petitioners and, hence, it could not be produced earlier and it was only when some third party handed over the certified copy that the said document came to the defendant-petitioners’ notice and they filed the present application for leading additional evidence. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that the said document is necessary for a just decision of the present case. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners. 5. In the present case, though the ground taken in the application for additional evidence for not producing the said document as also as argued by the leaned counsel for the defendant-petitioners was that it was not within their knowledge, however, a copy of the plaint which has been appended with the present petition as Annexure P-1 clearly reveals that in para 2 it was stated that a copy of the shart Wajib-Ul-Arj was being appended. Today the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners’ has handed over an uncertified copy of the plaint alongwith the document. The said document was filed alongwith the plaint. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners Yogesh Sharma 2025.02.17 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh CR-5242-2024 (O&M) -3- that the said document was not within their knowledge, hence, is ex facie an incorrect statement. The document was appended with the plaint and was well within the knowledge of the defendant-petitioners and in case the said document was not tendered in evidence by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2, the defendant-petitioners could have done so while leading evidence. In the story put up in the application for leading additional evidence that the certified copy was received from a third person on 31.07.2023 is also incorrect. As per the photocopy of the certified copy, which has been appended with the petition, the said copy was prepared in the year 2017. The exact same certified copy obtained in the year 2017 had been appended by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 alongwith the plaint. Therefore, it is apparent that it is not a case where the defendant-petitioners have gained knowledge of the said document at a later stage, rather a totally false story has been set up and now the same document which had been produced by the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 with the plaint is being sought to be produced as additional evidence. Moreover, the amended CPC does not contain any provision for leading additional evidence before the Trial Court. Order 18 Rule 17-A stands deleted. Even at the appellate stage additional evidence can be permitted if the same was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be led despite the exercise of due diligence. In appropriate cases Section 151 CPC has been invoked for production of additional evidence before a Trial Court but the facts of the present case do not entitle the defendant-petitioners for the exercise of discretion by this Court in their favour. No argument has been raised qua the order dated 13.07.2022. Yogesh Sharma 2025.02.17 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh CR-5242-2024 (O&M) -4- 6. In view of the above, the present revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 14.02.2025 Yogesh Sharma ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO Yogesh Sharma 2025.02.17 09:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court Chandigarh