JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. The revision petition has been directed against the order whereby petitioner’s application under Order 18, Rule 17-A, Code of Civil Procedure, to lead additional evidence has been dismissed.
2. In the suit filed by the petitioner, challenge is to the decree which has been passed against her ex-parte on the ground that the same was obtained against her by way of fraud and that she was not served in that suit. Suit is being contested by the defendants. After petitioner’s evidence was closed, defendants concluded their evidence. It was only thereafter that an application under Order 18, Rule 17-A, Code of Civil Procedure, was filed in order to bring on record two zimni orders and also the report on the summons allegedly on the basis of which ex-parte decree was passed against her. This application on contest has been dismissed.
3. Additional evidence can be allowed under Order 18, Rule 17-A, Code of Civil Procedure which provides that where a party satisfies the Court that after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was leading his evidence, the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. In this case, the only question to be determined in the suit filed by the petitioners whether the decree obtained against her was by way of fraud or whether she was not served in the suit. The evidence now sought to be produced was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is not her case that despite the due diligence this evidence could not be produced at the time she was allowed to conclude her evidence in affirmative. It is only in these two circumstances that additional evidence could be allowed to be led. It has consistently been held by this Court that additional evidence is not to be allowed as a matter of course unless a case is made out as provided under Order 18, Rule 17-A, Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court after under gone through the orders passed in the suit from time to time has dismissed the application which in my view calls for no interference in revision. Revision petition is therefore, dismissed.