JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) :- Claimant Bansi Lal has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 13.02.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad thereby dismissing the petitioner’s application for additional evidence. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 3. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the claimant availed of at least five effective opportunities for his evidence and thereafter closed his oral evidence on 05.10.2007 and was granted adjournment to produce documentary evidence, but no document was tendered on the next date of hearing i.e. on 09.10.2007 and also on the adjourned dates i.e. 02.11.2007 and 14.12.2007, when the case was fixed for tendering of documents by the claimant as well as for evidence of the respondent. Thereafter, on 11.01.2008, evidence of respondents no.1 and 2 was closed for tendering documents and the case was adjourned to 25.01.2008 for remaining evidence of respondent no.3. On 25.01.2008, the claimant moved an application for additional evidence. Reply thereof was filed on 08.02.2008, but on 04.04.2008, the said application was withdrawn and was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. It is thus manifest that the claimant-petitioner was granted more than sufficient number of opportunities to lead his evidence. Even after closing oral evidence, he was granted three opportunities for tendering the documents, but he did not tender any document in evidence. The matter does not end here. The claimant moved an application on 25.01.2008 for additional evidence, but got it dismissed as withdrawn on 04.04.2008. Much thereafter, the application which has been dismissed by the impugned order, was moved for additional evidence and learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to state as to when the said application was moved. Keeping in view all these circumstances, the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner’s application for additional evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Jeeto @ Smt. Manjit Kaur vs. Union of India reported as 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 408 and M/s Amba Maa Mills vs. Haryana State Indl. Dev. Corpn. and another reported as 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 637, vehemently contended that additional evidence, if necessary for adjudication of the case, can be permitted even in appeal and should not be shut out merely on the ground of delay. Dev. Corpn. and another reported as 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 637, vehemently contended that additional evidence, if necessary for adjudication of the case, can be permitted even in appeal and should not be shut out merely on the ground of delay. There is no quarrel with the legal proposition as such. However, this legal proposition does not help the petitioner because he availed of many opportunities for producing the proposed documentary evidence, but did not produce any document. Even earlier, the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence and got it dismissed as withdrawn. Even the impugned order was passed on 13.02.2009 and the instant revision petition has been filed more than 1½ months thereafter, for which there is no explanation. Even certified copy of the impugned order had been obtained as far back as on 21.02.2009, but the instant revision petition was filed on 31.03.2009 only. The petitioner is taking the Court for a ride. He had no intention to produce the proposed documents or probably he was not in possession thereof and the documents might have been procured later on. There has to be some end to the number of opportunities to be granted to a party to lead its evidence. Even after knowing that some documents were to be produced by way of additional evidence, the claimant got his first application for additional evidence dismissed as withdrawn. In these circumstances, there is no justification for permitting the petitioner to lead the proposed additional evidence. I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The revision petition, being bereft of any merit, is according dismissed. --------------