JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - Jagdeep Singh, plaintiff-respondent, had filed a suit for declaration that two parcels of land, detailed in the plaint, were joint Hindu Family/coparcenary property of himself and the defendants-petitioners. He also sought a declaration that decree dated May 4, 1982 passed in suit entitled Kuldip Singh v. Wazir Singh was null and void qua the plaintiffs right. The plaintiff-respondent sought joint possession of the land alongwith the defendants-petitioners. The suit was filed by Jagdeep Singh on June 13, 1995 and the defendants impleaded by him were his father Wazir Singh and brother Kuldeep Singh. However, according to Wazir Singh Jagdeep Singh was not his son. 2. Jagdeep Singh moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17A C.P.C. to lead additional evidence of a tape recorded conversation between him and his father Wazir Singh, wherein Wazir Singh had admitted Jagdeep Singh to be his son. It seems that in the suit Wazir Singh had denied this and had even refused to undergo a D.N.A. test to establish this relationship. The conversation had taken place long after the evidence of the plaintiff had been closed and since it was clinching evidence on the point in controversy, Jagdeep Singh wanted to place the evidence on record. 3. The application was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that it had been filed with mala fide intention to unnecessarily harass them, the suit had been filed in 1995, the plaintiffs statement has recorded on November 20, 1996. Thereafter the plaintiff had filed a few other applications for additional evidence and should not be permitted to lead evidence at this later stage. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Muktsar, vide order dated May 10, 2002 concluded that the evidence was relevant for a proper and conclusive adjudication of the matter in controversy and as such allowed the application, subject to payment of Rs. 700/- as costs. 5. The order has been challenged by the defendants-petitioners through the present Civil Revision filed under Section 115 C.P.C. The main ground for challenge is that the application had been filed with mala fide intention in order to prolong the proceedings on one pretext or the other and in order to manoeuvre and manufacture evidence, the application was the third application for additional evidence, it was highly belated and vexatious, the application had been filed at the fag end of the case. The provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A C.P.C. did not apply. The said provision was to advance the cause of justice and not to frustrate it. It was submitted that documents of (un)impeachable character, could be led by way of additional evidence in exceptional cases but the tape recorded conversation was of a highly doubtful nature and could easily have been maneouvred and manipulated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the chronology of the suit and submitted that it had been filed on June 13, 1995, issues had been farmed on July 26, 1996, the plaintiff closed his evidence on April 26, 1997 and the defendants also closed their evidence on October 3, 1997. Arguments were heard and the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on February 20, 1998. On this date, the plaintiff filed an application to produce additional evidence in the form of jamabandi and record of consolidation of holdings which was allowed and the additional evidence was taken on record. The plaintiff produced his additional evidence on July 17, 1998 and on September 30, 1998 he filed an application to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. The application to withdraw the suit was rejected on September 27, 1999. Thereafter arguments were again heard and the case was again listed for pronouncement of judgment. On November 5, 1999 the plaintiff filed a second application to produce additional evidence by way of a letter written by Wazir Singh, defendant 1 petitioner 1 wherein Wazir Singh had allegedly admitted that the plaintiff was his son. The said application was allowed on May 27, 2000 and additional evidence of the plaintiff was led consisting of Varinder Pal Brar (PW 2) and Gurdas Kaur (PW 3), whose statements were recorded on March 26, 2000 (sic). The plaintiff then closed his additional evidence. On May 28, 2001 the plaintiff filed an application for a D.N.A. test to establish that Wazir Singh was his father but this application was rejected. Subsequently on February 16, 2002 the plaintiff filed the present application to produce the tape recorded evidence allegedly containing conversation between him and Wazir Singh wherein Wazir Singh had admitted that he plaintiff was his son. The application was allowed. 7. Subsequently on February 16, 2002 the plaintiff filed the present application to produce the tape recorded evidence allegedly containing conversation between him and Wazir Singh wherein Wazir Singh had admitted that he plaintiff was his son. The application was allowed. 7. The conversation between Jagdeep Singh, Wazir Singh and Mohinder Kaur @ Mindo had taken place on January 16, 2002 at village Bhullar, Tehsil Muktsar. The transcript of the conversation in Punjabi, alongwith its translation into English, was taken on record for a proper decision of this petition. To examine the contents of the conversation may be prejudicial to the parties and may hurt the interest of either the plaintiff or the defendants. Suffice it to say, that admitting the tape recorded conversation at this stage would be a travesty of justice as the trial of the suit would have concluded on February 26, 1998 if the plaintiff had not been permitted to lead additional evidence of certain revenue record. Thereafter, the trial would have concluded on September 27, 1999 but again the plaintiff was permitted to lead additional evidence on May 27, 2000. Thereafter, the plaintiff against sought additional evidence of a D.N.A. test. The plaintiff apparently spoke to Wazir Singh on January 16, 2002 and recorded the conversation. On February 16, 2002 he filed an application to produce this additional evidence. 8. Howsoever genuine or authentic, the conversation may be, and there appears to be no reason to doubt its genuineness or authenticity, the fact remains can such evidence be allowed to be led at the end of the trial. The learned trial Court should have considered the nature and extent of evidence that was already on the file as regards the subject of paternity. The trial Court should also have considered the pleadings that were on record before deciding to permit the plaintiff to lead this vital evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. The trial Court has given no reason why the additional evidence was justified. Under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. (the provision has been omitted w.e.f. July 1, 2002) the Court had to first be satisfied that the party had exercised due diligence and the evidence was not within his knowledge and could not be produced at the time when he was leading evidence. In the present case the trial Court has given no such finding of satisfaction. In the present case the trial Court has given no such finding of satisfaction. The evidence was admittedly not in existence when the plaintiffs led evidence. The evidence was something that had been come into existence on January 16, 2002 although the plaintiffs case had all along been that he was Wazir Singhs son. From the order it is not clear if Wazir Singh had appeared as a witness and whether he had been cross-examined on this point. It was also not clear if the plaintiff had asserted that he was Wazir Singhs son when he was examined as a witness and what the cross-examination was on this issue. Infact there was no issue in the case to the effect whether the plaintiff was or was not the son of Wazir Singh. 9. Civil trials are not open-ended affairs, Civil procedure has been devised in such a way that trials proceed step-by-step and once stage of evidence had been crossed, Courts are naturally extremely reluctant to put the clock back by allowing production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence. Courts require that party should satisfy the Court that he had exercised due diligence and inspite of this, evidence had not come to his knowledge, therefore, could not be produced when he was leading evidence. The learned Civil Judge was quite correct in saying that the evidence had come into existence after the plaintiff had already closed his evidence, this was something that was quite true. The tape recording had come into existence when the conversation took place almost four and a half years after evidence had been closed. The tape recording was something that was done for the purpose of the case. It was not as if it had been in existence for a long time before the evidence was closed but had only been discovered when the application was filed. Therefore, the type of satisfaction recorded by the learned Civil Judge was clearly misplaced and evidence of the tape recorded conversation should not have been allowed. 10. In view of the above, it is held that the order of the learned Civil Judge dated May 10, 2002 was exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Court by Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. 10. In view of the above, it is held that the order of the learned Civil Judge dated May 10, 2002 was exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Court by Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Petition allowed.