The court emphasizes that additional evidence can only be admitted if justified; belated applications to cover previous omissions are generally not permitted unless no objection is raised regarding admissibility of documents.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Karamjit Singh, J.

Present revision petition has been filed by petitioner-plaintiff No.1 against order dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karnal whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.11.1984 which was executed by Jaimal Singh in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No.17 for total sale consideration of Rs. 1,27,625/-.

3. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 16, they being legal heirs of Jaimal Singh. Learned trial Court framed issues and thereafter, both the parties adduced evidence. When the suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, otherwise, for final arguments, the plaintiffs filed an application for additional evidence to get compared disputed thumb impression of Jaimal Singh on agreement to sell dated 7.11.1984 with his thumb impression appearing on sale deed dated 5.6.1982 from Document and Finger Print Expert and then to examine the said expert and further to tender certified copy of judgment dated 7.2.2014 passed by this Court in RSA-2419-1984 titled Savitri and others v. Hukam Chand and others. The application was contested by the defendants who filed written reply.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, said application for additional evidence was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 22.11.2018.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

6. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

7. Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submits that Jaimal Singh executed agreement to sell dated 7.11.1984 with regard to his land with the plaintiffs; that the petitioner wants to get compare the disputed thumb impression of Jaimal Singh on agreement to sell in question with his admitted thumb impression on sale deed dated 5.6.1982 in order to prove the execution of the aforesaid agreement to sell. It is further submitted that due to oversight, the petitioner failed to examine the Hand Writing Expert at the initial stage when the petitioner was leading his evidence. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no bar to lead additional evidence on behalf of the petitioner at this stage when evidence of both the parties has already been concluded. He further submits that certified copy of judgment dated 7.2.2014 is per se admissible and could be easily tendered by way of additional evidence by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the aforesaid additional evidence which the petitioner intends to produce is necessary for just decision of the case. So, prayer is made that the present petition be allowed and permission be given to the petitioner to lead additional evidence as prayed for.

8. Present petition is resisted by counsel for respondents No.12 to 19, who while supporting the impugned order, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It is further submitted that in the trial Court, firstly, the plaintiffs led their evidence and thereafter, the defendants were given opportunity to lead their evidence and the application for additional evidence was filed by the plaintiffs after recording of evidence of both the parties. It is further submitted that the application for additional evidence was filed at the belated stage just to prolong the proceedings in the