L.N. Mittal, J.
C.M. No. 22454-C-II of 2010:
1. Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case:
2. Nigam Kumar Walia - one of the legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2 (since deceased) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 14.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala,
thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 moved by the plaintiffs u/s 151 of the CPC for placing on record documents mentioned in the
application and for exhibiting the same.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is necessary to produce the aforesaid documents by way of additional evidence
and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.
5. I have carefully considered the contention, but find no merit therein.
6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the suit was filed on 23.03.1994. Plaintiffs'' evidence was closed by order of the trial court since the
plaintiffs failed to conclude their evidence in spite of several opportunities. In revision petition filed against the said order, this Court allowed
another opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce their evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiffs produced some evidence, but still did not conclude the
same and consequently, plaintiffs'' evidence was again closed by order of the trial court since only one opportunity had to be granted to the
plaintiffs as per order of this Court passed in earlier revision petition. Thereafter, defendants led their evidence. When the case was fixed for
rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs, at that stage, application Annexure P-1 was moved by the plaintiffs for placing on record and exhibiting the
documents mentioned in the application. It is thus apparent that plaintiffs have been given sufficient opportunities for their evidence. They were even
granted indulgence by this Court by granting another opportunity for their evidence. Consequently, there is no ground for allowing the plaintiffs
another opportunity to lead their evidence by way of additional evidence at the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments in the suit. Moreover,
some of the documents sought to be produced are not per se admissible in evidence and it is not even mentioned in the application that any witness
is to be examined to prove the documents in question. For this reason as well, the application could not have been allowed. Even otherwise, there
is no ground for allowing the application. It has not been alleged as to why these documents were not produced in affirmative evidence at
appropriate stage.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference in exercise of power of
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in
limine.
