IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR-4018-2026 (O&M) RAM CHANDER . . . . Petitioner Vs. Surjit Singh @ Shankra Nand and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 26.08.2026 Pronounced on: 27.08.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Jaideep Verma, Advocate, for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 2. The petitioners-plaintiffs have assailed the order dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P7) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar, whereby their application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to produce and prove certain documents by way of additional evidence has been dismissed. 3. The petitioners have instituted the suit seeking declaration with regard to the nature and ownership of the property of Kutiya of Maharaj Bhuriwale and consequential permanent injunction. As noticed by the learned trial Court, the controversy in the suit essentially concerns the legality of the sale deeds executed in the year 2011 and the rights claimed by the defendant in respect of the suit property. 4. By way of the application in question, the petitioners sought permission to produce, by way of additional evidence, an FIR registered against the defendant, the order passed on his anticipatory bail application, newspaper VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4018-2026 2026:PHHC:120117 reports, resolutions of the Gram Panchayat, voter lists and other related documents. The stated purpose was to establish certain alleged misconduct of the defendant and also to show that, contrary to his assertion of being unmarried and a Brahmchari, he had a wife. 5. The learned trial Court dismissed the application after noticing that the parties had already led their evidence and that the plaintiffs had even closed their rebuttal evidence. The case had been fixed for final arguments. The trial Court further found that the documents sought to be introduced related to alleged subsequent misconduct of the defendant and were not shown to be relevant to the subject matter of the suit, particularly the legality of the sale deeds of the year 2011. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proposed documents are relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute and that the application ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that the application is nothing but an attempt to reopen the evidence after conclusion thereof and to delay the disposal of the suit. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds no ground to interfere. 8. There can be no dispute that the power under Section 151 CPC is wide enough to be exercised in appropriate circumstances to secure the ends of justice. However, such power cannot be exercised merely to enable a party to reopen its evidence and place on record any material, which is not shown to be necessary for determination of the controversy in the suit. 9. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any prima facie nexus between the documents sought to be produced and the principal controversy requiring adjudication. The suit concerns, inter alia, the legality of the sale deeds executed in the year 2011 and the rights claimed by the defendant thereunder. The documents sought to be introduced, on the other hand, principally relate to alleged subsequent misconduct of the VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4018-2026 2026:PHHC:120117 defendant. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly found that their relevance to the issues in the suit has not been sufficiently established. 10. The fact that the petitioners allege that the defendant had represented himself to be unmarried or a Brahmchari does not, by itself, establish the relevance of the subsequent FIR, newspaper reports, Panchayat resolutions or voter lists to the validity of the sale deeds of 2011. Whether the petitioners were under any legally relevant misconception at the time of execution of the sale deeds is a matter to be determined on the pleadings and evidence already brought on record. The proposed material cannot be permitted merely on the basis of a general assertion that it may assist the plaintiffs. 11. Another important circumstance is the stage, at which the application was moved. The learned trial Court has recorded that the plaintiffs had already closed their rebuttal evidence and the matter had been fixed for final arguments. The suit had been pending for more than eight years. In such circumstances, the Court was required to exercise its discretion with due regard to the need for finality of proceedings and the requirement that additional evidence be permitted only where it is genuinely necessary for adjudication. 12. The petitioners have not been able to point out any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the exercise of discretion by the learned trial Court. The mere possibility that the proposed documents may be of some assistance to the plaintiffs is not sufficient to warrant reopening of the evidence, particularly when their relevance to the issues has not been established. 13. It is also settled that revisional jurisdiction is not intended to substitute the view of the revisional Court for a possible alternative view taken by the trial Court in exercise of a jurisdiction vested in it. Unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, perversely or with material irregularity, interference is not warranted. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4018-2026 2026:PHHC:120117 14. In the present case, the learned trial Court has considered the nature of the suit, the documents sought to be produced, their alleged relevance and the stage of the proceedings and has thereafter declined the application. The impugned order does not suffer from any such infirmity as would warrant any interference in revisional jurisdiction. 15. Finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed. 16. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit or the evidentiary value of any document already on record. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 27.08.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded On: 27.08.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.27 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document