Negligence of counsel is not a valid ground for permitting additional evidence.

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.

1. Lakhbir Singh and others have filed this revision petition against the order dated December 10, 1982, of the learned Sub Judge, Namodar, whereby their application requiring the defendants to produce a power of attorney, allegedly executed by Smt. Kesar Kaur and Smt. Biro in favour of Budh Singh and for production of other additional evidence was declined.

2. Lakhbir Singh and others, petitioners, filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated August 4, 1980. It was alleged that Smt. Kesar Kaur (since deceased) and Smt. Biro had through their attorney Budh Singh entered into an agreement with the petitioner-plaintiffs to sell certain land belonging to them. It is also alleged that Rs. 3000/- were paid as earnest money. The petitioners remained ready and willing for the registration of the sale-deed but the defendants committed default. They rather executed a sale-deed in favour of defendants 4 to 7.

3. The suit was contested by defendants 4 to 6.

Petitioners examined Charan Singh, the scribe of the alleged power of attorney, who supported their case. They also examined Budh Singh, above mentioned, as their own witness. He did not support their case. He was declared hostile. When the case was fixed for arguments the present application was filed. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application, mainly on the ground that it was within the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioners that the power of attorney was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Patti and was entered in the Bahi No. 4 and File No. 6 at page 384. The petitioners now wanted to produce that evidence of which they were fully aware when they started examining their own witnesses. After closing their case and at the fag end of the trial, they could not be allowed an opportunity to adduce additional evidence, which was within their knowledge.

4. Mr. A.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioners are rustic villagers. Their counsel was negligent. He did not summon the concerned officials and the relevant record of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Patti, while examining his own witnesses. For this reason, the petitioners should not suffer and they should be afforded at least one opportunity to produce the evidence. The application has been made under Rule 17-A of Order 18, Civil Procedure Code, which in turn lays down that a party can be allowed to lead additional evidence if after the exercise of due diligence, the party could not know about the evidence or if for certain other reasons, the party could not produce that evidence at the proper time. None of the two conditions is satisfied in the present case. The plaintiff-petitioners were in the know of the records in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Patti. They did not choose to summon the proper evidence. The petitioners have not claimed that they were prevented by factors beyond their control. The fact that the counsel was negligent in the discharge of his duties, is no ground for permitting additional evidence. The order of the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. He had exercised the discretion vested in him in accordance with provisions of Rule 17-A, Order 18, Civil Procedure Code. The revision petition is wholly without merit and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed.