M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 23. 4. 1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 98/1998 allowing two applications filed by the plaintiff/respondent, one under Order 18, Rule 17a and the other under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for mandatory and permanent injunction and for recovery of damages in respect of the suit property situated at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The said suit was contested by the defendant/petitioner by filing its written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed in the suit on 23. 10. 1997 when an order was also passed by the trial court that documents, if any, can be filed by the parties within 15 days. Thereafter the suit was listed for recording evidence of the plaintiff on 9. 1. 1998 and finally on 31. 8. 1998 evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The plaintiff examined Public Witness 1 Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon as his witness and his examination-in-Chief and cross-examination was recorded and thereafter the evidence was closed on 31. 8. 1998 and the suit was fixed for recording evidence of the defendant on 22. 10. 1998. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, before the evidence of the defendant could be recorded two applications were filed by the respondent/plaintiff-one under Order 13 Rule 2 and the other under Order 18 Rule 17a read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to recall and re-examine the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses and to file the documents enclosed with the Additional list of documents. In the said application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 A Civil Procedure Code it was stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff had authorised Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon to conduct the case on behalf of the plaintiff whereby Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon gave instructions to the counsel, submitted list of documents and list or witnesses. It is stated that both Mr. Tandon and the lawyer - committed mistake in closing the evidence of the plaintiff immediately after examining only Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon and in giving up the other witnesses mentioned in the list. It is stated that both Mr. Tandon and the lawyer - committed mistake in closing the evidence of the plaintiff immediately after examining only Shri Vijay Kumar Tandon and in giving up the other witnesses mentioned in the list. In the other application filed by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code it was stated that although a number of documents including the copy of the agreement dated 25. 8. 1982 as also the copy of the orders of Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi dated 23. 10. 1993 were handed over to be filed, it transpires that the said documents were not filed which are crucial and are the very basis of seeking relief in the suit. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid applications were taken up for consideration by the Civil Judge and by the impugned order the said applications were allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order the present Revision Petition has been preferred in this Court on which I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondent. ( 5 ) THE application under Order is Rule 17a was allowed by the trial court holding that although in the list filed by the plaintiff names of seven witnesses were mentioned, but the counsel for the plaintiff examined only one witness and closed the evidence. He held that a party should be given full opportunity to prove his case. In respect of the other application he was held that the agreement dated 25. 8. 1982 is the very basis of the suit and is a very material document and therefore, the same should be allowed to be brought on record. ( 6 ) IT is an admitted position that the aforesaid agreement which the plaintiff sought to file after Closure of the evidence of the witness of the plaintiff was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the said agreement was given to the counsel but the said counsel had failed to get the same exhibited during the course of recording of evidence of Public Witness1. It seems, the Civil Judge was satisfied on by the aforesaid plea and therefore, allowed production of the said document on the ground that a party should not be allowed to suffer due to laches and negligence on the part of the counsel. It seems, the Civil Judge was satisfied on by the aforesaid plea and therefore, allowed production of the said document on the ground that a party should not be allowed to suffer due to laches and negligence on the part of the counsel. In the present case, it is an admitted position that an authority was given by the plaintiff in favour of Shri V. K. Tandon to conduct the case on his behalf and also to depose on behalf of the plaintiff. Shri V. K. Tandon was examined in the suit. In his deposition he never referred to the said document at any point of time. His examination-in-chief and cross-examination was recorded and his evidence was closed and the suit was thereafter listed for evidence of the defendant. By allowing to produce the said documentary evidence subsequent to the closure of evidence of the plaintiff the Civil Judge has virtually permitted the plaintiff to fill up the lacuna in the aforesaid suit. It is established from the pleadings and averments made in the application that the existence of the said document was to the knowledge of the plaintiff, his authorised attorney as also the counsel. But none of them took any effective steps to get the said documents either placed on the record or to get the same exhibited or refer to and mention at the time of recording of the evidence of Public Witness1 namely - Shri V. K. Tandon, who examined himself as Public Witness-1. The plaintiff also closed the evidence after examining Public Witness 1 i. e. Shri V. K. Tandon who was the authorised attorney of the plaintiff. Although names of several persons have been cited an witnesses a conscious decision was taken by the authorised attorney as also the counsel not to examine any other witness name in the list. The respondent filed the application under Order 18 Rule 17a of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for calling and examining the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses. As Public Witness-1 the authorised attorney was already examined as the witness of the plaintiff, no sufficient ground is made out for recalling the said witnesses. So far the other witnesses named in. As Public Witness-1 the authorised attorney was already examined as the witness of the plaintiff, no sufficient ground is made out for recalling the said witnesses. So far the other witnesses named in. the list are concerned they were given up by the plaintiff and the suit was listed for recording evidence of the defendant and at that stage such a prayer could be allowed only when sufficient ground is made out. No such sufficient ground is made out in the present case to allow examination of other witnesses who were given up. ( 7 ) IN my considered opinion the plaintiff has failed to give any sufficient reason or to indicate sufficient cause for allowing the plaintiff to get the other witnesses mentioned in the list examined. The impugned order, therefore, was passed by exercising the jurisdiction illegality. The impugned order is therefore, set aside. The application, filed by respondent/plaintiff are dismissed. The suit would not be listed for recording evidence of the defendant.