The necessity and relevance of additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure must be carefully evaluated, and the court may refuse the application if the documents are found to be unnecessary for deciding the issues between the parties.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 21.3.2002 dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) for adducing additional evidence.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the present petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed a civil suit No. 12 of 2001 on 24.7.1993/25.9.2001 for possession by ejecting the defendant-respondent from the suit property on the ground that the property has been newly constructed in the year 1990. The defendant-respondent while cross-examining the plaintiff-petitioner made a suggestion that the lintel of the shop of Gulshan Kumar is the same as that of suit property. The defendant-respondent also simultaneously tendered receipt of payment of rent in respect of shop of Gulshan Kumar as Ec.D.1 which is of the year 1987. From this evidence, the defendant-respondent sought to establish that the suit property alongwith the shop of Gulshan Kumar was in existence in the year 1987. According to the plaintiff-petitioner, the factual position is that the shop in possession of Gulshan Kumar was constructed in the year 1990 itself. He has further averred that the brother of the plaintiff-petitioner Bharat Bhushan, who is the owner of the shop which was possessed by Gulshan Kumar, had also filed a suit for possession against Gulshan Kumar. In that suit, Gulshan Kumar had filed his written statement and the rent note of the year 1990 in favour of Bharat Bhushan was also produced. By way of additional evidence the plaintiff- petitioner wants to bring on record the copies of plaint, written statement and rent note in favour of Bharat Bhushan executed by Gulshan Kumar on the ground that he did not have any knowledge of the aforesaid documents at the time when he was leading his evidence despite exercise of due diligence. The defendant-respondent filed reply to the application taking various objections and controverted all the allegations. It has further been asserted that all those facts which are now sought to be brought on record by adducing additional evidence were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff- petitioner. After hearing the arguments, the Civil Judge dismissed the application by recording the following order :

"After perusing the documents placed on the file, pleadings of the parties and arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties, it emerges out that the plaintiff filed the present application on 19.2.2002 when the case was fixed for arguments. The present application filed by the plaintiff alleging there in that he wants to produce on record the copy of plaint, written statement and rent note in favour of Bharat Bhushan by Gulshan Kumar in the case titled Bharat Bhushan v. Gulshan Kumar by way of additional evidence. The present suit filed by the plaintiff on 19.7.1993 suit for ejectment and filing the written statement by the defendants and issues were framed on 22.2.1986 by then Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kaithal in which the issue regarding construction in the year of 1990 was framed and both the parties led their evidence. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the court after last opportunity by the then Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) vide order dated 27.9.2000 and the defendant also concluded his evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. Now, the plaintiff alleged in the application that while crossing in the deposition of the plaintiff, the defendant suggested that lintel of the shop of Gulshan Kumar is same as that of suit property and simultaneously entered the receipt of payment of rent in respect of shop of Gulshan Kumar as Ex.D1 of 1987. But the present case is filed by Krishan Kumar against Munish Kumar regarding the property bearing MCK No. 526-A/13 situated in the area of Jind Road. Amrit Building opposite Randhir Cinema, Kaithal. The plaintiff had knowledge about the documents wh