Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. As per Office report, respondents No.1 to 3 have been served. However, no one appears on their behalf. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated July 21, 2005 whereby the petitioners application to permit them to lead additional evidence has been declined by the learned Civil Judge (Junior division), Kurukshetra. 3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the application for additional evidence has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the petitioners affirmative evidence was closed on May 28, 2002 and thereafter the case has been adjourned on several occasions but the application has been moved by them at a belated stage when the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the only additional evidence which they want to produce, is comprising certified copies of the judgment and decree of the civil court, photostat copies of which are already on the record. 5. After hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned order and having regard to the fact that the petitioners alone cannot be held responsible for the delay caused due to placement of the case before the Lok Adalat on several occasions for an amicable solution of the family dispute and also keeping in view the nature of additional evidence which the petitioners want to produce, this petition is allowed and the order dated July 21, 2005 is set aside and the trial court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioners to produce the additional evidence in the form of certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil court, subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs. Disposed of.