Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- Dismissal of application of defendant No.4, petitioner herein, for producing additional evidence in the first appellate court vide impugned order dated 30.9.2013, forms genesis of this revision petition.

2. Against decree dated 15.3.2012 passed by the civil court, an appeal was preferred by defendant No.4 interalia impleading plaintiffs as respondents and official defendants No.4 to 6 as proforma respondents. In application made under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, applicant-defendant No.4 had taken a stand that inadvertently no evidence could be led by her though very important documents in the nature of registered Will dated 14.9.1998 (Ex.D1), ration card, policy and other documents had duly been tendered but the witnesses of the record of the above-said documents could not be examined. Claiming that these documents were of such nature that those were beyond fabrication, it is averred that the evidence should have been allowed to prove these documents.

3. This application was strongly contested.

4. It is claimed that at appellate stage, an application had been made merely to fill up the lacuna, whereas the same even did not fall within the purview of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. It was elaborated that despite availing many opportunities, the applicant-defendant had not been able to conclude its evidence which had then been closed by order of the lower court, which order as well had never been challenged before any Court.

5. After considering rival claims of the parties, learned lower court had come to a firm finding that the application for leading additional evidence was merely a device to re-open the entire case without any valid reasons. Sequelly, the application was dismissed.

6. By way of this revision petition, it is claimed that additional evidence can be led at any stage when imparting of substantial justice to the parties is the issue. It is pleaded further that the documents were duly tendered in evidence but could not be proved for their proper admission in the evidence.

7. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have urged that when evidence of the applicant-defendant, petitioner herein, had been closed by order of the Court, when she could not conclude her evidence despite availing many opportunities, additional evidence could not have been allowed as a matter of routine.

8. At the outset, it must be noticed that defendant No.4, petitioner herein, had moved this application for additional evidence before the first appellate court where she is the sole appellant against judgment and decree dated 15.3.2012 which operates, interalia, against her.

9. Merely because the evidence is beyond fabrication, ipso facto is no ground to allow the same particularly when evidence of the applicantdefendant No.4 had been closed by order of the lower court when she had not been able to produce her entire evidence despite having availed multiple opportunities.

10. Moreover, additional evidence cannot be allowed to be used as a handle or a tool by a party to fill up the lacuna in his evidence particularly when rights of the parties have been adjudicated and the applicant-defendant is already in appeal before the first appellate court.

11. It is further worth notice that evidence of the petitioner defendant No.4 had been closed by order of the Court and now, the application had been moved for producing the same evidence which could not be led earlier by the plaintiff because of closure of her evidence by order of the lower court. It is a conceded position that evidence of the petitionerdefendant was closed by order of the Court which order was never challenged by defendant No.4. In such circumstances, this Court had not allowed such a party to lead additional evidence when the same had not been led in his affirmative evidence. Reference in this regard may be made to Bhim Raj Versus Jai Bhagwan 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 16 (P&H). Para No.6 of this judgment is apt and relevant. For ready reference, it is re