IMPORTANT POINT
Additional Evidence--Evidence which is allowed to be led may be relevant but same cannot be allowed because Court cannot be party by helping the party to prove its case by allowing him to full up lacuna under grab of additional evidence

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:-This is defendants revision petition challenging the order dated 31.1.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, whereby application for leading additional evidence filed by respondent/plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 has been allowed.

2. As per the averments made in this revision petition, plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration regarding the suit land on the basis of a registered Will dated 9.12.1988 (Ex.P1) allegedly executed by Jhutha Ram in favour of the plaintiffs and claimed title over the properties left by him. The aforesaid Will was scribed by Roshan Lal and was witnessed by Krishan Sanghi, Lambardar and Kurda Ram and was registered by Banwari Lal, the then Sub Registrar.

3. Jhutha Ram died on 24.1.2001 and the present suit was filed on 22.1.2003. Issues in the suit were framed on 2.6.2003. Three Pws. were examined on 17.9.2003. On 6.10.2004, two PWs were examined. The plaintiffs wanted to examine Vijay Kumar Rastogi handwriting expert to prove the signatures of Krishan Sanghi on the Will (Ex.P1). However on account of his illness, the case was adjourned to 16.11.2004 for producing the plaintiff evidence at his own risk and responsibility. On 16.11.2004, three PWs were examined. Kurda Ram PW 9 was also examined partly. On 29.11.2004, further examination of Kurda Ram PW9 was completed.

4. On 7.12.2004, PW 10 was examined. No further evidence of the plaintiff was present. Learned counsel for the plaintiff made his statement that he has closed his evidence except the handwriting expert and also filed an application for adjournment on the ground that Mr. Vijay Kumar Rastogi Handwriting Expert had gone to Bombay all of a sudden and for that reason could not be examined. Plaintiffs were granted last opportunity to examine handwriting expert at his own responsibility on 20.12.2004 failing which evidence of the plaintiff was to be deemed to have been closed. On 3.01.2005, instead of Vijay Rastogi, the plaintiff produced Shri Shamsher Singh Malik, handwriting and finger print expert. Still the counsel for the plaintiff made a statement that he has to produce voter list of Ward No.6 as well as certified copy of house tax register and closed his remaining evidence. The case was adjourned to 29.1.2005 for the evidence of the petitioner/defendant reserving the right of the plaintiff to produce the aforesaid document stating that if the plaintiff failed to produce the document on the date fixed, in that event the documentary evidence of the plaintiff shall be treated as closed.

5. On 18.5.2005, evidence of defendants was closed and the case was adjourned to 28.5.2005 for rebuttal evidence if any and the arguments. On 28.5.2005, no rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff was present. On 9.6.2005, plaintiffs moved an application to produce rebuttal evidence which was dismissed. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioners in this court vide Civil Revision No.3240 of 2005, which was accepted vide order dated 14.6.2005 and opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to adduce rebuttal evidence. On 3.2.2006, petitioner submitted documents Ex.P2 to P-7 in rebuttal evidence.

6. At this stage plaintiffs filed another application for granting permission to exhibit sale deed dated 24.5.1965. The petitioner raised no objection to the application filed by the plaintiff for additional evidence and on 10.2.2006, the plaintiff tendered additional evidence and closed his additional evidence as well as rebuttal evidence vide his statement of the even date. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments.

7. Thereafter on 5.11.2007, i.e., after about 1 year and 7 months of closure of rebuttal evidence and leading additional evidence, the present application was filed by the petitioner to lead further additional evidence stating that Shri Krishan Sanghi, Numberdar had died about 7 to 8 years ago. The son of Shri Krishan Sanghi, Numberdar i.e., Gopal Krishan, who was examined by the plaintiff as PW4 for proving the