JUDGMENT
Sat Pal, J.
1. This petition has been directed against the order dated 3.5.1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faridkot. By this order, the learned Additional Civil Judge has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. for production of additional evidence.
2. Mr. Brar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by way of additional evidence, the petitioner wanted to prove the sanctioned site plans with regard to the suit premises which are already on record. He further submits that for the proper adjudication of the case these documents are quite relevant. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Western Electronics Limited v. Chand Radio and Ors., (1988-1)118 P.L.R. 690.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I however do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said order. From the impugned order itself, it is clear that the petitioner had examined DW-2 Harbans Lal to prove these documents and during the examination of said Harbans Lal, it was observed by the learned trial Court that these documents were signed and sanctioned by the Executive Officer of the Committee who is still alive. Keeping in view this observation, the petitioner could have summoned the Executive Officer concerned to prove these documents at the relevant time. Since the petitioner did not exercise due diligence, rather on the contrary it was a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner not to examine the relevant Executive Officer of the Committee. In view of these facts, do not find any merit in this petition. The view I have taken finds support from a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority v. Smt. Kailashwati Devi, (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 880 (S.C.).
4. For the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is dismissed.