Additional Evidence--Since the applicant had failed to challenge the order closing the evidence, therefore, they could not be permitted to lead additional evidence.

Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- This revision has been filed by one defendant aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by her under Section 151 CPC. She was seeking permission to lead additional evidence.

2. We may straightway proceed to deal with brevity, the case presented before the Court. A suit was filed in May 2006. Issues were framed in May 2007. The plaintiff closed its evidence and thereafter, six adjournments were granted to the defendants to lead their evidence. Their evidence was closed by Court order on 15.02.2010. These facts were disclosed by the counsel representing the petitioner.

3. The suit had been filed by the brothers who had laid challenge to the mutation that was entered with respect to the estate of their father. The defendants impleaded were the mother, sisters and other legal heirs. Defendant nos.2 to 5 filed a separate written statement pleading that the Will was forged. Defendant no.2 claimed that she was a ‘Parda Nasheen’ lady and was residing at village Gochhi in district Jhajjar and in the record her residence was shown to be village Khungai and her lawyer sent a message through a registered letter at that village which was not received by her and she contacted her lawyer in July 2010 and she came to know about status of the case and that her evidence was closed. It was claimed that she came to know that her father Chandgi Ram had filed a suit in 1972 and the plaint, Vakalatnama and the replication of that suit had been thumb marked by the father and a Fingerprint Expert was hired by them who has compared the thumb impressions with the thumb impressions on the disputed Will and they were not of the same person and to decide the controversy it was necessary to examine the Expert.

4. The trial Court dismissed the application and para no.12 of the order reads thus:-

“12. Moreover no fact has been brought before the Court to satisfy the conscience of the court that the same were not in the knowledge of the defendant/applicant at the time of producing their evidence and hence they could not have brought the same before the court despite due diligence. Rather the case has been filed on the basis of Will dated 11.5.1973 executed by deceased Chandgi who was father of both the plaintiff and applicant/defendant Saroj and the earlier litigation from where the thumb of deceased Chandgi have been obtained and compared by the applicant also pertains to the year 1972. This fact was also in the knowledge of applicant on the day she filed her written statement and again at the time of leading evidence. Thus allowing the application at this stage would tantamount to the case and reviewing its order passed by this court. The case has been fixed for arguments for two years now. The ratio of case titled “State of Punjab and others versus Ajmer Singh” relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, is not applicable to the case in hand. In Ajmer Singh’s case (supra), the witnesses were busy in a meeting with Deputy Commissioner and soon after the closure of evidence by the court, the application was moved. But in the instant case, the defendant availed of ample number of opportunities of fair hearing and the instant application was moved after seeking number of adjournment for addressing arguments. Thus since the applicant has already been given ample opportunities for leading evidence and the application seems to be an after thought and not a bonafide and fair move the same is consequently dismissed.”

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not come to know that her evidence had been closed and it was only when she contacted her lawyer in July 2010 then she came to know of the closure of their evidence. Counsel submits that the statement of the Handwriting Expert is essential as the Will is forged and she had come to know of that litigation only then they sought permission for additional evidence.

6. The counsel appearing for the contesting respondents urges that the suit was