JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa, in Civil Suit No. 683 dated 02.12.2019 titled as 'Major Singh Vs. Baldev Singh', whereby, application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for additional evidence has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the civil suit was at the stage of rebuttal evidence when the above application was filed. He further contends that the plaintiff has already availed numerous opportunities for his evidence, but failed to adduce evidence despite having knowledge of the documents much prior to the filing of the suit. He further contends that the application for additional evidence filed by the respondent/plaintiff has wrongly been allowed at belated stage.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the additional evidence is the certified copy of the record of the Court itself and is a part of the documents on record in the previous civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, which was withdrawn by him with liberty to file a fresh civil suit. He, therefore, contends that application filed by him has rightly been allowed. He places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2022(7) SCC 247 as well as the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nihala (deceased) through LRs Vs. Irshad, 2017(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 884, Mohan Lal Vs. Bhim Sain and another, 2011(13) R.C.R (Civil) 225, Chandgi Vs. Mehar Singh, 1998(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 354, Manmohan Singh Vs. Davinder Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur @ Gurminder Kaur and others, 2015(5) R.C.R (Civil), 661, Sham Lal Vs. Raj Kumar, 2012(57) R.C.R. (Civil) 210, CR-450-2024 titled as 'Krishna Devi and others Vs. Gopal Krishan and others' decided on 08.07.2025 and CR-9251-2018 titled as 'Navdeep Kaur and others Vs. Gurcharan Kaur and another' decided on 03.03.2020 to contend that additional evidence can be produced at any stage. Hence, he prays that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their able assistance.

5. A perusal of the case file shows that respondent/plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the registered deed of transfer of ownership No.1125 dated 08.03.2016 registered in favour of the petitioner/defendant-Baldev Singh qua land measuring 16 Kanals and 07 Marlas. Written statement was filed on 02.04.2021. Issues were framed on 30.07.2021. Plaintiff led evidence from 08.04.2022 to 24.09.2024. Oral evidence was closed on 30.08.2024 and documentary evidence was closed on 24.09.2024. He availed 34 opportunities to conclude his evidence. The evidence on behalf of the petitioner/defendant commenced on 04.10.2024. Oral evidence was closed on 20.12.2024 and documentary evidence was closed on 03.01.2025. Evidence of both the parties were closed and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence and arguments on 05.02.2025, then to 13.02.2025, 18.02.2025 and to 25.02.2025. On 25.02.2025, respondent/ plaintiff moved the application for additional evidence. The application moved by respondent/plaintiff is reproduced as under:-

'In the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa Major Singh Son of Surjit Singh, resident of Dhalewan, Tehsil & District Mansa. ...Plaintiff

VERSUS

Baldev Singh Son of Surjit Singh, resident of Dhalewan, Tehsil & District Mansa. ..Respondent

SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Application granting permission for additional evidence by way of producing statement of Jaswant Singh Lambardar along with affidavit, statement of Gurdeep Singh along with affidavit and producing/exhibiting document i.e. Death Certificate of Jangir Kaur.

Respected Sir,

The application of plaintiff is submitted as under:-

1. That the above-titled case is fixed for today.

2. That the p