JUDGMENT V.M. Jain. J.: Originally the petitioners had filed revision petition under Section 115 CPC passed by the trial court dismissing the application of the defendants under Order 18 Rule 17 A CPC. Subsequently, in CMP No. 234 of 2004 he petition was ordered to be treated as CMPMO instead of Civil revision, vide order dated 26.7.2005 passed by this Court. 2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are :hat the plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendants. The plaintiffs had produced their evidence. Thereafter the case was at the stage of defendants evidence. Since the defendants had failed to produce their evidence, the learned trial Court had: closed the evidence of the defendants by Court order dated 1.9.1999 and the case was fixed for arguments. Thereupon the defendants filed application-dated 26.10.1999 under Order 18 Rule 117-A CPC seeking permission to produce additional evidence before the trial Court. The said application was opposed by the other side. After hearing counsel for the parities and perusing the record, the learned trial Court dismissed the application, vide order-dated 15.11.1999 and fixed the case for arguments. Aggrieved against this order-dated 15.11.1999 the petitioners filed the present petition in this Court. 3. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. As referred to above, the evidence of the defendants was closed by the trial Court-by-Court order dated 1.9.1999 and the case was fixed for arguments. The case was at the stage of hearing arguments when the defendants moved the application dated 26.10.1999 under Order 18 Rule 117-A CPC for producing additional evidence. In the said application, it was simply alleged on behalf of the defendants that the case was fixed for that day i.e. 26.10.1999 for arguments and that the defendants could not produce the judgment dated 2.6.21998, Tatima, jamabandi and statement of Hari Sharan inadvertently despite due diligence. It was further alleged that the said documents were essential in order to reach the conclusion of the case and to determine the real controversy between the parties and the same were necessary for the just decision of the case. It was accordingly prayed that the defendants be allowed to produce and exhibit those documents in the interest of justice. 4. It was accordingly prayed that the defendants be allowed to produce and exhibit those documents in the interest of justice. 4. From a perusal of the averments made in the aforesaid application, in my opinion, it would be clear that the defendants had failed to make out any case for production of additional evidence. Merely by reproducing the provisions as contained in Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my opinion, it would not be sufficient to allow the defendants to produce the additional evidence. In the present case, the defendants had infect tried to mislead the Court by withholding information from the Court that infect the evidence of the defendants had already been closed by the Court by Court order dated 1.9.1999. Keeping in view the fact that the evidence of the defendants had been closed by the Court order, in my opinion, the defendants were required to show that inspite of the evidence of the defendants having been closed by the Court by Court order, a case was made out for allowing the defendants to produce additional evidence. It is not the case of the defendants that all these documents were not available at the time when the evidence of the defendants was closed by the Court order vide order dated 1.9.1999. Infact this evidence which the defendants now wanted to produce by way of additional evidence was already available at the time when the evidence of the defendants was closed by Court order. That being so, in my opinion, the trial Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the application for additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC. 5. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed -