JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J.: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.1.1999 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Rohru, whereby an application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, under Order 18 Rule 2(4), 18 and 17-A read with Section 151 C.P.C. for leading f additional evidence has been dismissed. 2. The un-disputed facts are the plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents- defendants (hereinafter referred to as defendants) through family members, labourers, parents, servants, contractor etc. from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land, khasra No. 576/1, measuring 270 square meters, situate in Chak Nagar Panchayat Rohru, District Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). The suit land was jointly purchased by plaintiff and defendant No. 1, Bhagat Chand in equal shares in the year 1988. Hereinafter facts as averred by the plaintiff are disputed by the defendants. Further case of the plaintiff is that the suit land had been partitioned between the plaintiff and defendants and he got the land towards the forest colony and the land towards D.D. Ghar was allotted to defendant No. 1. The parties started construction over their respective portions of land in the year 1991. Plaintiff completed her construction in the year 1993, whereas defendant No. l completed the same in the year 1996. However, a small portion of the area was left by the plaintiff to be covered with the slab due to shortage of material. ON 8.11.1996 she completed putting of the slab on such portion through a contractor, but the defendants dismantled that portion. It is claimed that the defendants had no right, title or interest over the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share towards the forest colony, but they are threatening to construct their stair case in the land and building falling xxx in the share of the plaintiff by use of force, hence the present suit. The defendants are contesting the suit. In the written statement, they have taken preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form, that the plaintiff has no enforcable cause of action, that suit is bad for want of identification of suit land. The defendants are contesting the suit. In the written statement, they have taken preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form, that the plaintiff has no enforcable cause of action, that suit is bad for want of identification of suit land. On merits partition of the suit land, as alleged by the plaintiff, has been denied and it is claimed that the suit land is still joint and that ground storey over the suit land has been jointly constructed by them leaving a space of 5 feet in between two constructions which are duly used for staires for the upper storey(s) after the partition of the land inter-se the parties. It is further averred that the plaintiff without getting the land partitioned, wants to raise construction over a portion of her choice by grabing more are which the plaintiff has no right to do. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff has been denied. It was during the pendency of the aforesaid suit mat the plaintiff moved an application under Order 18 Rule 2(4) and Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Section 151 C.P.C. for producing additional evidence on the ground that the copy of Khataunii filed by the plaintiff with the plaint has been exhibited inadvertently by the defendants and photographs of the house remained unexhibited and are to be exhibited. Site plans of the building, which were filed during the pendency of the suit and had been prepared by one Kamal, Junior Engineer, of the notified area Committee Rohm, are also to be produced in evidence and said Kamal is to be examined as a witness to prove separate possession of the parties. One Prithvi Raj is also to be examined. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. 4. Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. reads as follows:- "17-A. Production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence. 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." 5. A bare reading of the above provisions make it clear that the Court has the powers to permit a party at a later stage to lead such evidence which was not within its knowledge when it has the opportunity to lead evidence or which could not be produced at the relevant time despite due diligence. These enabling provisions are to be liberally interpreted so as to advance the justice than to defeat it. At the same time the court must be watchful that a party is not trying to make the advantage of these provisions to fill in the lacunae or delay the disposal of the matter with a view to harass the opposite party. 6. In the instant case the suit land was admittedly purchased jointly by the parties. It is plaintiffs case that after such purchase and before raising construction thereon by both the parties, it was partitioned according to their shares. Prima facie to prove such partition a tatima showing the partitioned properly identify the land. Plaintiff neither with the plaint nor at any later stage filed such tatima to identify the respective portions of the jointly purchased land, as might have fallen to the share of the parties. A specific objection was taken in this regard by the defendants in the written statement and an issue has been framed on this count. The intendment of the application filed by the plaintiff to lead additional evidence in the form of photos and site plan of the construction raised on the spot appears to clarify the spot position. Evidence now sought to be led is not going to establish the identity of the portions of the land respectively owned and possessed by them due to the alleged partition thereof. Thus, the plaintiff seems to be attempting to confuse the matter than to clarify inasmuch as the photographs of construction and site plan will not prove partition or respective ownership of the parties one any specific portion of the suit land. Moreover, site plans are un-dated documents and it is also not explained as to when the photographs were taken. Hence these documents are of suspicious nature. 7. One witness about partition is intended to be examined to prove partition. Moreover, site plans are un-dated documents and it is also not explained as to when the photographs were taken. Hence these documents are of suspicious nature. 7. One witness about partition is intended to be examined to prove partition. However, it is not explained as to show such person will prove the boundaries of the respective plots of the parties whereas the plaintiff is not awaire whether the partition was reduced to writing or not. It is not the case that any tatima was prepared or any boundary was fixed at the time of alleged partition. The whole exercise for leading additional evidence thus appears to fill in the lacunae of non-identification of the suit land, that too by leading evidence which prima facie appears to be in-capable of doing so independently. Hence, the plaintiff cannot be now permitted to do so. 8. Be it stated that the plaintiff moved an application earlier also for production of the site plans which was dismissed by the trial court on 2.1.1999. By moving another application at a later stage the plaintiff apart from other evidence sought permission to produce the site plans against without challenging the earlier order of rejection, which act cannot be called fair, but dilatory only. 9. It may also be pointed out that neither the plaintiff has been able to make out a case that at the relevant time when she had opportunity to lead evidence the evidence now sought to be produced as additional evidence was not available nor it is shown that it could not be produce despite diligence. In view of this, the application for leading additional evidence is not substantiated by any reasonable cause which could persuade the court to permit leading of additional evidence. 10. Allowing or dis-allowing leading of additional evidence by a party is within the discretion of the Court. The learned Sub Judge having exercised his discretion twice on substainable grounds, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this 11. As a result, the revision fails and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. The observations made hereinabove are strictly in the disposal of this petition and nothing contained therein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on any controversy on merits of the respective case of the parties. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 31.12.1999. No order as to costs. The observations made hereinabove are strictly in the disposal of this petition and nothing contained therein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on any controversy on merits of the respective case of the parties. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 31.12.1999. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith.