Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.: - The plaintiff has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order passed by the trial Court whereby application filed by him for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

2. In the suit filed by him, the plaintiff has sought relief of injunction against the respondent in respect of a Chaubara with staircase constructed on two shops bearing MC No. 154, Ward No. 2, Pehowa of which he claims himself to be owner and in possession. It is averred therein that initially, the defendant had filed Civil Suit No. 237 of 1998 in respect of the two shops beneath the suit property which was decreed on 8.12.2005 and sale-deed in respect of those shops executed in his favour on 23.5.2006. On 9.12.2006, the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006 (here-in-after referred to as the “previous suit”) seeking injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit property, i.e. a Chaubara with staircase constructed over the two shops. However, in the evening of 9.12.2006, taking undue benefit of manpower and political backing, the defendant took forcible possession of the suit property by removing the goods lying therein belonging to the plaintiff and, thereafter, demolished the entire suit property and the shops beneath the same. That suit which was filed for injunction was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.12.2006. The plaintiff then filed Civil Suit No. 608 of 2011 on 21.12.2006 (here-in-after referred to as the “present suit”) wherein he sought decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the suit property to its original condition, i.e. by constructing a Chaubara and a staircase and in the event of the defendant failing to do the same, the plaintiff be allowed to carry out the construction of the Chaubara and staircase at the costs and risk of the defendant. During the pendency of the present suit, the petitioner filed application dated 9.1.2012 (Annexure P/2) wherein he prayed that he be allowed to tender in evidence certified copy of the statement made by him as well as his counsel on 15.12.2006 and also the certified copy of the order dated 16.12.2006 passed in the previous suit which though was available with his counsel in the present suit, but could not be tendered in evidence earlier. He also could not tender copy of the plaint in the previous suit while leading evidence in the present suit and the factum of the filing of the previous suit was not denied by the defendant.

3. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties found no merit in the application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence on the ground that the additional evidence sought to be led by him was in his knowledge since the very beginning and the same could not be led subsequently by taking the plea that it could not be tendered despite due diligence. Moreover, the present suit was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments and in the event of the application being allowed, it would amount to reopening the trial of the case which pertained to the year of 2006 and included in the list of 100 oldest civil cases of the concerned Court. The relevant para of the impugned order passed by the trial Court while stating the reasons for dismissing the application is re-produced here-inbelow:-

“After hearing both the counsel for the parties and perusing the case file minutely, this Court is of the view that the application in hand is liable to be dismissed. It is the case of the applicant/plaintiff that the certified copy of statement of plaintiff as well as counsel for the plaintiff dated 15.12.2006 and certified copy of order dated 16.12.2006 in civil suit No. 542/2006 were in the brief of the counsel for the plaintiff, but the said documents could not be tendered in evidence and so, could not be produced by the plaintiff in spite of due diligence. It is further the case of applicant that above said documents are the part of judicial file and cannot be forg