IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 15.05.2025 RAJENDER KUMAR .... Petitioner VERSUS AMAR SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate for the petitioner.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri whereby the application filed by plaintiff No.1-petitioner for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that plaintiff No.1- petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of 24 Marlas of land as fully described in the plaint as also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their right, title or interest. Written statement was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP

2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

3) Whether the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in its present form ? OPD

4) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit ?

OPD

5) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and have concealed the true and material facts from the Court ? OPD

6) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-

joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

7) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD

8) Whether the present suit is barred by law of limitation ? OPD

9) Whether the present suit is false and frivolous and defendants are entitled to special costs ? OPD

10) Relief.

After the evidence had been concluded, an application was filed by plaintiff No.1-petitioner seeking permission to tender in evidence as many as 11 documents. The only reason stated in the application was that the documents were important and that the counsel came to know while preparing the case that these documents were necessary. Vide the impugned order the application for additional evidence was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition by plaintiff No.1-petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1-petitioner would contend that the evidence now sought to be led is necessary to prove the case and hence the application for additional evidence ought to have been allowed.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case the only reason given in the application for leading additional evidence is that it came to the notice of the counsel while preparing the case for arguments that the documents would be necessary to decide the case. The suit is for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession of the land as stated in the headnote of the plaint and that mutations No.3942 and 5214 were wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and are liable to be set aside as also all subsequent entries in the revenue record on the basis of the said mutations have been challenged.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1-petitioner has contended that the said documents are necessary to further the case of the plaintiffs that they are entitled to the declaration. It is trite that an application for additional evidence cannot be used to fill in lacunae at the time of final arguments.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.K. Velusamy vs. N.

Palanisamy [2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875 (SC)] has held 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 applicati