JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.- The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to produce six documents on record, which according to him, were earlier exhibited as P7 to P11, but were re-exhibited. This prayer has now been declined leading to filing of the present revision petition by the petitioner. The copy of the application containing prayer aforementioned is on record as Exh.P2. It is seen that petitioner prayed for exhibiting documents P7 to P12 by way of rebuttal evidence or in the alternative sought permission to lead these documents as additional evidence. The reasons for which the petitioner was required to move this application are contained in order, Annexure P-8, vide which it was directed that Exhs.P7 to P12 cannot be read in evidence. A perusal of this order would show that documents Exhs.P7 to P12 were exhibited on record by the petitioner along with documents Exhs.P1 to P6. The petitioner-plaintiff had moved an application dated 16.3.2004 for exhibiting documents P1 to P6, which were placed on record, but had not been exhibited by him inadvertently. The said application came up for consideration on 5.8.2004 when the counsel for the defendants raised no objection in granting the said permission. The counsel for the plaintiff, however, exhibited on record not only 6-7 documents for which no objection was made, but also exhibited on record documents P7 to P12 unauthorisedly for which the other side had not given the no objection as aforementioned. Defendants accordingly moved an application on 9.8.2004 objecting to the documents so exhibited and prayed that these should be kept only as mark A, B, C, D, E and F. In a reply filed to this application, the plaintiff did not contest the stand of the defendants that permission was for exhibiting documents P1 to P6 only and that documents Exhs.P1 to P12 were tendered by the counsel. He, however, objected to the prayer made by the defendants saying that defendants were estopped by their act and conduct from seeking exclusion of these documents from consideration. Additional Civil Judge, Sonepat vide his order dated 13.10.2005 viewed that documents P7 to P12 cannot be read into evidence. The court also recorded the submission of the counsel appearing for the plaintiff, who prayed that right to rebuttal should be given to him in order to place on record these documents at a later stage. Additional Civil Judge, Sonepat vide his order dated 13.10.2005 viewed that documents P7 to P12 cannot be read into evidence. The court also recorded the submission of the counsel appearing for the plaintiff, who prayed that right to rebuttal should be given to him in order to place on record these documents at a later stage. This question, however, was not decided and left open and the case was adjourned. It appears that this order was never challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner, however, moved an application on 14.6.2007 seeking permission to exhibit these documents again. Giving the background as afore-mentioned, the prayer was made for exhibiting documents P7 to P12 in rebuttal or in the alternative as additional evidence. 2. The counsel has mainly contended that when a court refuses to grant permission for producing a material piece of evidence, which goes to the root of the matter and which is required for just and proper adjudication of the case, this court can always correct this error in exercising of powers under Article 227 of the Consideration of India. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondents before the trial court that these documents now cannot be allowed to be exhibited either by way of rebuttal or as an additional evidence as these were always in the knowledge of the plaintiff and could not be produced on account of his negligence. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the case of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. M/s Surindera and Company, 2003(1) AILLR 142. The trial court noticed that the petitioner-plaintiff had availed several opportunities to conclude the evidence and his evidence in the affirmative as well as documentary evidence was ordered to be closed. Noticing that evidence could only be adduced in rebuttal at this stage by the plaintiff and affirmative evidence could not be so led, the application has been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the documents now required to be exhibited were essential for the just decision of the case and hence could even be taken as an additional evidence, even if these were not to be permitted in rebuttal. According to the counsel, these documents were details of the previous litigation between the parties. According to the counsel, these documents were details of the previous litigation between the parties. The counsel, however, could not point out as to how and in what manner these documents were essential for the just decision of the case. On query by the court, the counsel could not answer if the earlier order whereby the documents were again marked after being exhibited was challenged or not. The counsel further failed to make any submission if such an order could validly be made or not. The prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner that these documents could be exhibited as an additional evidence could also not be validly considered as he failed to show as to how they were essential for the just decision of the case. A fact cannot be lost sight of that Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC which authorised production of additional evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence has been deleted and such a power is now available in exercise of inherent jurisdiction which would open to be so utilised when it is essential in the interest of justice. No such consideration apparently arises in this case. No case for interference in the impugned order, as such, is made out. The revision is accordingly dismissed. ———————