JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Order dated 23rd April, 1998, is impugned in this revision. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is the owner of half share of the land in dispute and sale executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and 3 out of the said land was illegal void and ineffective. While praying for the relief of possession, the plaintiff also prayed for the relief of injunction. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that she is the sister of Jeet Singh and both of them are only heirs of deceased Fauja Singh and she was entitled to half share in the property of her deceased father. The suit was contested by the defendants, Jeet Singh had died in the meanwhile. His heirs were brought on record who also contested the suit along with other defendants.
2. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application for additional evidence. It was prayed that during the examination of DW Mann Singh, while being re-examined by the defendants, questions were put in regard to the entries in the Bahi. The Bahi is written by different persons. Thus, she wanted to produce the Bahi and to examine the persons who had made entries in the Bahi. This application was opposed and contested by the defendant and was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23rd April, 1998 which is assailed in this revision as already noticed.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the Bahi was in possession of the petitioner but the applicant was not aware about its relevancy. Now she wanted to produce the Bahi and examine the witnesses who had made entries in it to show that she is the sister of Jeet Singh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that no reason whatsoever has been stated in the application as to why the Bahi was not produce earlier and in any case there is no justification for allowing the application within the purview and scope of order 18, Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. It has been specifically noticed by the learned trial court that after the re-examination of DW Mann Singh an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness was granted but the same was not availed of by the petitioner. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bahi sought to be produced was neither relied upon nor was filed along with the suit. A document which is neither filed nor relied upon by the party concerned cannot be permitted to be produced on record without any reason or justification at a subsequent stage. As is clear from the above stated facts that the evidence of the plaintiff had also been concluded, the provisions of Order 18, Rule 17-A cannot be permitted to be utilised to fill up the lacunas in evidence and to defeat the case of the other party which a party might have proved on records. There cannot be any straight jacket formula for determining such an application and each case would have to be decided on its merits keeping in view the facts and circumstances thereof.
5. It is also conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed vide order dated 3.11.1997 and the said order remains unchallenged even till date. In other words, the plaintiff has accepted the said order as final and the present application appears to be an attempt to over reach the said order passed by the Court. This also cannot be permitted, as the facts of the case do not justify production of additional evidence at this stage even otherwise. The document in question was admittedly within her knowledge and possession. No explanation muchless a plausible or reasonable has been tendered on record to justify non- production of this document for all this time. The provisions of Order 18, Rule 17-A of the code of Criminal Procedure unambiguously provide due diligence on the part of the applicant and reasonable cause must be shown for non-production of such document. May be in a given case the negligence is not attributable to the party but to an agent, however, that is not the case here. The application in fact is totally silent about the sufficiency of the cause of non-production of this document and it cannot be said that the applicant has acted with due diligence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Bidhi Ram v. Gokhran Mali, (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 851, to argue that the present application ought to be allowed. No doubt in that case application for additional evidence was allowed by the High Court but the facts of that case were totally different and distinct. The evidence of the plaintiff had not been closed by the order of the Court and secondly it was found that negligence was attributable to the counsel and the applicant has shown sufficient cause for non-production of the document.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the pronouncement of this Court in the case Chandan Singh v. Naranjan Singh and Ors., 1990(1) S.L.J. 292, to argue that the present application is an attempt to set at naught the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 3.11.1997. He relied upon para 4 of this judgment, which reads as under :-
“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. It is the case where the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by Court order which was never challenged by him. Now, by making this application for additional evidence, the plaintiff seeks to set at naught the said order and, therefore, the application has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.
8. In view of the above discussion I am unable to convince myself that the present application is bona fide and that the provisions of Order 18, Rule 17-A are satisfied in the present case.
9. Finding no merit in this revision, the same is dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Interim order shall stand vacated.