Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. This matter arises out of three applications moved under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence. In the first application, a prayer was made that the file of civil suit No. 224, containing the original writing dated October 21, 1985, which was a family settlement between some of the present contestants, be produced in the Court and examined by Handwriting Expert Dewan K.S. Puri dated November 14, 1993 pertaining to the aforesaid family settlement. A third application was moved for permission to produce on record the photographic chart, negatives of photos and certified copies of the vakalatnama dated March 7, 1993. 2. Replies were filed by the opposite party and it was pointed out that the applications had been filed after a long delay as the arguments in the suit had already been heard on November 5, 1993 and November 17, 1993 and after both parties had taken a long time to produce their evidence. It has been explained that the aforesaid applications had been filed after almost seven years from the date of the closure of the evidence by both the parties. It has been accordingly prayed that the condition precedent under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Civil Procedure Code had not been spelt out and the defaulting party was not entitled to fill up the lacuna in its evidence. The trial Court in its order dated February 23, 1994 held that though such additional evidence was not to be allowed in a mechanical manner and the applications were perhaps not justified in terms of Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code, but keeping in view the dispute between the parties and in the interest of justice (that party would not suffer on account of some mistake committed by itself or by its counsel) the additional evidence was essential for the just decision of the case. It is against this order of the trial Court that the present revision petition has been filed, 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. 4. The dispute inter-se the parties is as to whether Jangir Kaur petitioner had got remarried prior to 1956 after the death of her first husband. It is against this order of the trial Court that the present revision petition has been filed, 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. 4. The dispute inter-se the parties is as to whether Jangir Kaur petitioner had got remarried prior to 1956 after the death of her first husband. The significance of this date would be that in case it was proved that she had got married prior to 1956, she would be entitled to succeed to the property of her late husband only under the customary law and if she had got married after 1956 she would be entitled to succeed his property under the Hindu Succession Act. The dispute inter se the parties in the present petition is based on this important factor. 5. I am of the view that the order of the trial Court is fully justified. The trial Court has relied upon the judgment Punjab Kaur and Ors. v. Gurcharan Singh and Ors., (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 141 to hold that even if the parties are negligent in conducting their case, yet if the evidence sought to be produced was essential for the proper decision of the case, the Court was not competent to scuttle the evidence and must a flow the applications. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a Single Bench judgment in Smt. Satro of Sonepat v. Dhan Ram, 1992 H.R.R. 617 to contend that the family settlement should not be allowed to put on record at this belated stage. It is true that the observations in the above-cited judgment do support the argument of the learned counsel, but in the case the document sought to be produced on record was a new document, whereas in the present case, the family settlement is already on record as mark-A. The learned trial Court having exercised its jurisdiction way back in the year 1994, it would not be appropriate at this stage to interfere in the matter. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall however, have costs of Rs. 5,000/- before the documents are taken on record. Dasti.