Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Legal representatives of Teja Singh-defendant No.1 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugning order dated 09.03.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anandpur Sahib, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-7 moved by defendants for additional evidence.

2. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed suit for possession of the suit property alleging that he purchased the same vide sale deed dated 25.06.1985 from Prabhi Devi. Plaintiff also alleged that he had purchased adjoining property towards West vide sale deed 16.05.1975.

3. Defendants in their application for additional evidence alleged that plaintiff has given his sale deeds dated 02.03.1970 and 18.03.1975 (registered on 16.05.1975) to Oriental Bank of Commerce as guarantor of a loan, alongwith affidavit dated 08.11.2000 depicting that the suit property is of defendants’ predecessor Rugha Singh. Accordingly said two sale deeds and affidavit are sought to be produced in additional evidence by the defendants.

4. Plaintiff, by filing reply Annexure P-8, opposed the aforesaid application. It was pleaded that even if the plaintiff mentioned the property to be under possession of Rugha Singh instead of Prabhi Devi, it would not create title in favour of defendants. Proposed additional evidence is also not relevant. Various other pleas were also raised.

5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dismissed the defendants’ application for additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved, instant revision petition has been filed by legal representatives of defendant No.1.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

7. Counsel for the petitioners contended that proposed additional evidence has now come to the knowledge of defendants and immediately they filed application for additional evidence. It was contended that the aforesaid documents are relevant and are documents of the plaintiff himself.

8. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff intended that sale deed dated 16.05.1975 was within the knowledge of the defendants since inception whereas the other sale deed and affidavit are not relevant. It was contended that there is no justification for permitting additional evidence at the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments.

9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. Necessity for additional evidence arises after a party closes its evidence. When defendant closes his evidence, the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Thus whenever defendant has to seek permission for additional evidence, it has to be at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments and cannot be at any earlier stage.

10. Insofar as sale deed dated 18.03.1975/16.05.1975 is concerned, the plaintiff has himself referred to the same in his plaint. Consequently the plaintiff can have no objection to production of the said sale deed by way of additional evidence. Of course, the said sale deed, having been referred to in the plaint, was in the knowledge of the defendants since inception and they should have produced the same while they were leading their evidence. However, for not doing so, they may be subjected to cost but the proposed additional evidence cannot be shut out on this ground. As regards other sale deed dated 02.03.1970 and affidavit dated 08.11.2000, these are also said to be documents of the plaintiff himself. Consequently the said documents should also be allowed to be produced by way of additional evidence on payment of cost. Their evidentiary value has to be assessed and evaluated by the trial Court while deciding the suit finally. At this stage, suffice to mention that boundaries of the property sold mentioned in the aforesaid two sale deeds and boundaries of the property mentioned in affidavit of the plaintiff may be relevant if the said boundaries referred to the suit property.

11. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the consid