JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar dismissing the application filed by the objector-petitioner under order XVIII rule 17-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) for permission to lead additional evidence. 2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the present revision petition are that the Arbitrator announced the award on 20.2.1997 relating to the work of construction of RCC-cum-brick circular P.T. Sewer and various types of S.W. Pipe Sewer and all other works contingent thereto at Pathankot. Three arbitration cases were filed which were registered as arbitration cases No. 43, 45 and misc. Case No. 57. All the cases were consolidated by the order dated 18.2.1999. The order impugned has arisen out of Misc. Arbitration case No. 57 of 1997 in which the objections were filed by the objector- petitioner. Despite various opportunities given to the objector-petitioner he did not produce his evidence and his evidence was closed on 11.3.2002. The case was adjourned to 19.3.2002 for evidence of the claimant-respondent for rebuttal and arguments. It was on 19.3.2002 that the objector-petitioner filed an application under order XVIII rule 17-A of the Code for adducing additional evidence which has been dismissed and the case was fixed for 24.4.2002. 3. The Civil Judge while dismissing the application has come to the conclusion that the issues were framed on 10.3.1998 and objector-petitioner availed more that 20 opportunities but failed to conclude its evidence. On 11.3.2002 the evidence of the objector-petitioner was closed by order and an application was then filed on 19.3.2002 for proving Annexures I to XXVI by way of additional evidence. The argument of the objector-petitioner that the original file was not available in its office at Gurdaspur and a request was made to the Court on 11.3.2002 was rejected being contrary to the record. Another reason for declining the application given by the Civil Judge is that the objector-petitioner has failed to give details of these annexures, their nature and as to how those annexures were relevant to the controversy raised before the Court. The third reason given by the Civil Judge is that no satisfactory explanation has been tendered for its failure to adduce these annexures in evidence at the time of leading its affirmative evidence. The third reason given by the Civil Judge is that no satisfactory explanation has been tendered for its failure to adduce these annexures in evidence at the time of leading its affirmative evidence. According to the Civil Judge it has also not been pleaded that the documents were not within its knowledge. With regard to the second proposed additional evidence the Civil Judge observed that the objector-petitioner wanted to prove initiation of proceedings against the Arbitrator by Vigilance Department in some other matter. Rejecting this piece of additional evidence as irrelevant, the Civil Judge observed that it has not been averred in the application that the Arbitrator passed the award on extraneous consideration. Therefore, the proposed additional evidence was held irrelevant for adjudicating the controversy in question. On these premises, the Civil Judge has dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed by the objector-petitioner. 4. Shri G.S. Sathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that additional evidence sought to be produced is necessary to decide the controversy raised before the Court. He has repeated the arguments which have already been considered and rejected by the Civil Judge, namely, Annexures I to XXVI were lying in the office of objector-petitioner at Gurdaspur and the file containing the originals was not available in the office of objector- petitioner at Gurdaspur. 5. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and did not feel impressed with the same. The basic ingredients of order XVIII rule 17-A of the Code have not been satisfied by the objector- petitioner showing that the additional evidence was either not in his knowledge or after exercise of due diligence it could not be produced by him at the time when he was leading his evidence. Moreover, the objector- petitioner has failed to disclose the details showing the relevance of Annexures I to XXVI with controversy raised before the Court. Even the other plea that request for adjournment was made on 11.3.2002, when the order closing the evidence of the objector-petitioner was passed, has been found to be against the record. 6. In view of the above, I do not find that the impugned order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Civil Judge suffers from any material irregularity or such an illegality which would warrant interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Code. 6. In view of the above, I do not find that the impugned order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the Civil Judge suffers from any material irregularity or such an illegality which would warrant interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Code. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.