JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. In this revision petition, Ramji Lai, petitioner herein, has impugned the order dated 13.8.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has fallen in error in not allowing the application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.
3. The necessary facts for determination of the question involved in the present revision are that the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that decree dated 22.1.1991 passed in favour of the defendant No.2 and Intkal No. 513 dated 11.3.1991 is null and void and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The suit was instituted in the year 1991. The suit was contested by the defendants, who claimed to be the owners in possession of the property in dispute. During the pendency of the suit, an application for additional evidence was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the year 1997, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.8.1997.
4. At the very outset, it needs to be noticed that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by the order of the Court dated 22.2.1996 after granting number of opportunities to the plaintiff (nearly 9 as noticed in the impugned order). A review application was filed by the plaintiff for recalling the order dated 22.2.1996. This was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 12.6.1996. The plaintiff-petitioner preferred a revision against the order dated 31.1.1997, which was also dismissed by the High Court.
5. The above conduct of the plaintiff-petitioner clearly shows that the plaintiff is only interested in delaying the conclusion of the proceedings before the learned trial Court and infact there is clear abuse of process of law by the plaintiff. Every party, who approaches the Court for a relief, is under obligation to conclude his case expeditiously, while being vigilant of his rights and obligation in the proceedings. No procedural law permits abuse thereof by any party to the case. The application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiff lacks bonafide and has been presented with the sole intention of nullifying the effect of the order, which has clearly become final between the parties upto the High Court. To invoke the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party is obliged to satisfy the Court that the basic ingredients for claiming such a relief are fully satisfied on the record. It was for the applicant to show the relevancy of the document and how the applicant despite exercise of due diligence could not produce the documents on the earlier occasions. Furthermore, the applicant must satisfy that the application is bonafide and is not intended to frustrate the process of the Court. Learned trial Court after considering various judgments of this Court, rejected the application. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to show that the ingredient afore-indicated are satisfied in the present case. Once the applicant had taken recourse of filing the review application and the revision petition before the High Court against the order closing the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to frustrate the effect and implications of the said order in the garb of filing an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code.
6. For the reasons aforestated, I am not able to see any error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the impugned order which would call for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.