The power to allow additional evidence should not be used routinely and should only be exercised if the evidence will assist in rendering justice.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Trial Court whereby application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for leading additional evidence has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.04.2010. In the written statement the agreement to sell was denied. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed for adducing additional evidence. A perusal of the said application (Annexure P-3) reveals that the additional evidence sought to be produced inter-alia included examination of Gurwinder Singh, Stamp Vendor along with his Register dated 27.04.2010 to prove that the defendant-respondent had purchased the stamp papers on 27.04.2010 for the purpose of executing the agreement to sell. The plaintiff-petitioner also wanted to produce as additional evidence an entry in the Register No.142 dated 14.06.2010 of the Treasury, entry dated 14.06.2010 of the scribe Krishan Gopal and entry dated 11.06.2010 of the stamp vendor Resham Lal. It was averred in the application that the said evidence could not be adduced in the affirmative due to the reason that the documents were to be put to the defendant-respondent who did not step into the witness box. Reply was filed to the said application by the defendant-respondent. Vide the impugned order, the application for additional evidence was dismissed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the attorney of the defendant-respondent had appeared in the witness box and the documents could not be put to him in his cross-examination and, therefore, the necessity of filing the present application for adducing additional evidence arose. The counsel would further contend that additional evidence could be permitted to be led at any stage of the suit. In support of his arguments, reliance has been placed upon K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy [2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875 (SC)], Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills vs. M/s Markanda Sugar Traders & Anr. [2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 620], Narinder Kumar vs. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir & Anr. [2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 87], Rozdar Khan vs. Isab & Ors. [2014 (79) RCR (Civil) 78], Jeeto @ Smt. Manjit Kaur vs. Union of India [2007 (4) Civil Court Cases 678 (P&H)], Hans Raj vs. Surinder Kaur & Ors. [2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 377 (P&H)] and Phuman Singh & Anr. vs. Hazara Singh & Ors. [2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 671].

4. Heard.

5. In the present case the categoric stand of the defendant-respondent in the written statement was that the agreement to sell was false, frivolous and a fabricated document. The onus to prove the agreement to sell was on the plaintiff-petitioner. The application filed for additional evidence was totally bereft of any details as to when the plaintiff-petitioner gained knowledge of the said documents. A perusal of the application reveals that the only ground for leading additional evidence, as stated in the application, is that since the defendant-respondent did not step into the witness box hence the documents could not be put to him, though it is an admitted case that the attorney of the defendant-respondent stepped into the witness box and the documents were not put to the said attorney. In the case of K.K. Velusamy (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by the Apex Court as under :

“16. We may add a word of caution. The power under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the cou