RISAL SINGH Vs. JAG RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.7.2013, passed by the court below whereby application filed by the petitioner to adduce additional evidence has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. He submits that evidence sought to be produced is material for decision of the case. According to him, plaintiff wants to show that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract for which evidence of certain revenue officials and a stamp vendor is required to be adduced. According to him, order passed by the court below is unsustainable.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears, plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for specific performance with regard to land measuring 38 Kanals 18 Marlas on the basis of agreement to sell dated 23.3.2006. Suit was instituted in the year 2007 and plaintiff availed sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in affirmative. His counsel ultimately closed his evidence on 2.11.2009. At the stage the trial neared its culmination, instant application was moved to lead additional evidence to prove that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. This plea was resisted by the defendant on the ground that evidence sought to be led was in knowledge of the plaintiff from the very beginning. He had given no reasons for not leading such evidence earlier. Trial court rejected the plea to lead additional evidence observing that plaintiff had not been able to show that evidence sought to be led was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff or same could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. I find no legal infirmity with the order. The case remained pending at the stage of plaintiff's evidence for considerable period. All the documents were in knowledge of plaintiff since the commencement of the trial. At the stage when case came up for rebuttal evidence and arguments, instant application was moved. I am of the considered view that application to lead additional evidence at this stage is misconceived. Revision petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.