JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.4.1999 passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Chamba whereby the application of the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) under Order 18, Rule 17-A read with Section 151, CPC praying for grant of permission to lead additional evidence has been rejected. 2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have instituted a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the land measuring 1-2 bighas comprising Khasra No. 732 situate in Bharmour, more specifically mentioned in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-92 which land is stated to be owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The defendant has contested the claim of the plaintiffs inter-alia on the grounds that the suit land was mortgaged by the father of Joni Ram, Parkash Chand, Vijay Kumar, Puran Chand, sons of Dhyan Singh in Samat 1976 with the fore-fathers of the defendant for Rs. 700/- which fact was also confirmed in Samat 2084-85 and the possession of the land was handed over to the fore-fathers of the defendant and, thus, initially his grand-father, then his father and now the defendant remained in continuous possession-of 14 biswas of suit land bearing Khasra No. 732. It is also claimed that the said mortgage has not yet been redeemed. 3. Be it stated that when the suit was listed for evidence of the defendant on 23.3.1999, the learned trial Judge noticed that the suit was pending for evidence of the defendant since 13.5.1997 and the defendant had failed to take steps to summon his remaining evidence for the said date, therefore, defence evidence was closed. The defendant then moved an application under Order 18, Rule 17-A read with Section 151, CPC averring therein that the entire case of the defendants is based on the document of mortgage which document is in Tankri and it could not be earlier proved despite due diligence because its translation could not be got done and that in the absence of such a document, fair justice may not be rendered in the case, hence the application with the prayer that the defendant may be permitted to prove such document. The application was contested by the plaintiffs mainly on the grounds that the defendant was aware of the existence of the document right from the beginning and he could have proved it when he had been given repeated opportunities to lead his evidence, but he failed to examine the necessary witnesses, hence it has been denied that the defendant has been diligent. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge, vide impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that the mortgage deed was well within the knowledge of the defendant but he did not take appropriate steps to prove the mortgage deed despite several opportunities having been afforded to him. Hence the present petition. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant papers. 5. A perusal of the record reveals that initially when the defendant was to lead evidence, his witnesses Amar Nath and Daulat Ram were present on 17.11.1997 and also on 1.12.1997. On the earlier occasion, they could not be examined because the counsel for the defendant was not present and on the second occasion, they could not be examined because an application for amendment of the written statement was presented on 1.12.1997 Which was allowed on 4.3.1998 and the suit was listed for filing replication on 25.3.1998. It was thereafter that the case was listed for evidence of the defendant on 24.6.1998 and then on 17.9.1998. On both these dates, the defendant failed to produce his witnesses with the result that the case was adjourned for his evidence for 18.12.1998. On that date, statements of two DWs were recorded. One witness, namely, Amar Nath was given up and statement of one more witness, namely, Jai Ram could not be recorded because the original mortgage deed was not available and the case was adjourned for 16.3.1999. For this date, the defendant did not take any step for summoning his witnesses, therefore, a short adjournment was granted and the case was listed for 23.3.1999. The defendant was, however, again defaulter in -taking steps for leading his remaining evidence. A perusal of the record reveals that even on 23.3.1999, an adjournment was requested for but was declined. The order does not specify as to on what ground, the adjournment was prayed for. The defendant was, however, again defaulter in -taking steps for leading his remaining evidence. A perusal of the record reveals that even on 23.3.1999, an adjournment was requested for but was declined. The order does not specify as to on what ground, the adjournment was prayed for. It is, however, submitted for the defendant that the request for adjournment was made because the translation of the original deed of mortgage could not be prepared due to non-availability of a person who knew Tankri. It cannot be disputed that Tankri is a language which is now known to a very few people in the State who might have learnt it at their own level, as it is not taught in the schools. Presumably, it was, therefore, not readily and easily possible to get a person who could read and translate a document in Tankri into English or Hindi. In such a situation, one more opportunity by affording reasonable time to the defendant to get the mortgage deed translated, ought to have been given when the case was adjourned on 16.3.1999, but instead of a longer date enabling the defendant to find out a person who could translate the document in question, the case was fixed for 23.3.1999 and the evidence was closed. Against the aforesaid background, though the defendant has been given much time for leading his evidence, but the situation with which he was faced could have been taken into account in granting him some more time to prove the mortgage deed which is a very vital piece of evidence for just decision of the dispute between the parties. In any case, when the difficulty faced by the defendant has been highlighted by him in his application for grant of permission to lead additional evidence, he should have been given an opportunity, may be subject to costs. 6. It may be pointed out here that Rule 17-A of Order 18, CPC enables the Court to permit a party who has already led its evidence to lead additional evidence at a later stage if it is shown to the Court that the evidence sought to be produced as additional evidence at a later stage, was not within its knowledge or could not be produced by such party at a time when it was leading its evidence. It will have, therefore, to be gathered from the facts and circumstance of each case as to whether existence of ground to lead additional evidence has been shown to the satisfaction of the Court or not. While appreciating the ground for leading additional evidence, the Court must bear in mind that rules of procedure are meant for doing justice between the parties and not penalising a party simply because it failed to take appropriate steps at the appropriate time, though, at the same time, it should also not be lost sight of that the rules of procedure are not used as a means to protract the litigation on flimsy grounds. Thus, the Court has to strike a balance and lean towards a decision which will ensure to enable it to do justice to the parties. 7. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the defendant had throughout been grossly negligent to take steps to lead his evidence. Evidence regarding mortgage deed basically could not be recorded once for want of the original deed on 18.12.1998 when Jai Ram witness had to be discharged for want of the original deed and at a later state for want of the translation of the original deed which is in Tankri. It is also pertinent to point out here that the defence of the defendant is based on the mortgage deed which is stated to have come into being more than 75 years before and was rectified more than about 60 years before. The interest of justice will be better served, in this situation, by granting one more opportunity to the defendant to lead his evidence and not by depriving him from proving such an old and material document. 8. However, as already stated hereinabove, the defendant had been granted time to do the needful repeatedly, therefore, the opportunity must be subject to costs. 9. In the view of the above discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the application of the defendant to lead additional evidence is allowed subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The trial Court is directed to fix a date for evidence of the defendant, after receipt of the records and the defendant shall lead his entire evidence on such date, subject to prior payment of costs as awarded hereinabove. 1,000/-. The trial Court is directed to fix a date for evidence of the defendant, after receipt of the records and the defendant shall lead his entire evidence on such date, subject to prior payment of costs as awarded hereinabove. The parties, through their learned Counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.10.1999. CMP 115/99 is also dismissed. Revision allowed.