JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral). :- Labh Singh plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 8.10.2009, Annexure P/7, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fazilka thereby dismissing petitioner’s application for additional evidence. 2. Plaintiff-petitioner filed suit against his brother Kulwant Singh (since deceased and represented by legal representatives-respondents) challenging agreement of exchange of lands. The plaintiff alleged that some land was under mortgage prior to the impugned agreement of exchange and therefore, the plaintiff would not have taken the said mortgaged land in exchange. The defendant in written statement denied the said mortgage deed. The plaintiff put the mortgage deed and two other documents to the defendant in his cross-examination who denied the same. The case was deferred for further cross-examination to confront him with the original documents but unfortunately the defendant died. Thereafter son of the defendant appeared in the witness box and denied the signatures of his father in the witness box. Making these averments, the plaintiff moved application Annexure P/5 for additional evidence to prove the mortgage deed and also power of attorney executed by Kulwant Singh in another case and also reply filed by Kulwant Singh in the court of Tehsildar-cum- Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Abohar. 3. Learned trial court has dismissed the aforesaid application of plaintiff for additional evidence vide Annexure order P/7 which is under challenge in the instant revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that denial of documents by the defendant and his son in the witness box necessitated the aforesaid application for additional evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the defendant had denied the mortgage deed in written statement itself and therefore, the plaintiff should have produced the proposed additional evidence at appropriate stage of affirmative evidence. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Satnam Singh versus Devinder Kaur, 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 639. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 7. Necessity for additional evidence arises when proposed evidence is not produced at the appropriate stage. In the instant case, the plaintiff should have produced the evidence of mortgage deed and other documents in affirmative evidence. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 7. Necessity for additional evidence arises when proposed evidence is not produced at the appropriate stage. In the instant case, the plaintiff should have produced the evidence of mortgage deed and other documents in affirmative evidence. However, the plaintiff failed to do so and that is why the plaintiff had to move application for additional evidence. The proposed additional evidence is documentary evidence and appears to be relevant for the adjudication of the controversy. Therefore, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff is permitted to adduce the proposed additional evidence on payment of costs. 8. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 8.10.2009, Annexure P/7, passed by the trial court is set aside and plaintiff’s application Annexure P/5 for additional evidence is allowed and petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to lead proposed additional evidence subject to payment of Rs 5000/- as costs precedent. The plaintiff-petitioner shall be granted only two opportunities for leading his additional evidence at own responsibility. The plaintiff may seek assistance of the court to summon any witness but not more than two opportunities shall be granted to the petitioner even on ground of non service of any witness or non appearance of any witness in spite of service or for any other reason whatsoever. ------------