Judgment Jaswant Singh, J. 1. Plaintiff-Petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 20.12.2010 (P.1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhuri whereby their application to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioners along with one Hamir Kaurmother of deceased Sohan Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5 lacs as compensation on account of murder of Sohan Singh S/o Surjit Singh at the hands of defendants-respondents. During the pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application to lead additional evidence by alleging that the documents and witnesses mentioned in the application are material for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. Upon notice, reply to the same was filed by the defendants-respondents opposing the contents of the same. After hearing both the sides, learned ACJ (Sr.Divn.), Dhuri dismissed the application vide its impugned order dated 20.12.2010, hence the present petition. 3. It is necessary to mention here that neither the application nor reply are attached with the paper book by the petitioners for the reasons best known to them. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the petitioners wants to examine the witnesses mentioned in the application dated 2.2.2010 to prove and exhibit the documents, which were tendered as marked documents. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were having well within their knowledge the documents sought to be exhibited but they did not show any diligence while leading their evidence in affirmative. The case of the plaintiffs-petitioners was fixed for evidence on 10.12.2009 and thereafter plaintiffs-petitioners closed their oral evidence on 13.9.2010 and documentary evidence was closed on 20.9.2010 at their own. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defendant evidence and even after closure of defendants evidence, the present application was filed on 2.2.2010 for leading additional evidence. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for leading the additional evidence, which was in their knowledge and did not produce the same without exercising due diligence. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were not having any knowledge regarding the additional evidence, which is sought to be led mentioned in the application dated 2.2.2010. 4. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were not having any knowledge regarding the additional evidence, which is sought to be led mentioned in the application dated 2.2.2010. 4. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, no illegality or perversity is found to have been committed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) while passing the impugned order and no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. Dismissed.