JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Plaintiff Charan Dass Teria filed a suit for recovery against the present petitioner. Notice was issued to the petitioner. After filing of the written statement by the petitioner, issues were framed by the trial Court on 6.5.2005. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiff from time to time. Plaintiff closed his evidence on 8.12.2009 and thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for evidence of the petitioner and defendant. The petitioner closed his evidence on 23.2.2010. Thereafter, an application was moved on 16.7.2010 by the petitioner to lead additional evidence and examine handwriting and finger print expert who could examine the alleged signatures of the petitioner on agreement Ex.P-1 and stamp vendor, who had sold the stamp paper. Vide the impugned order dated 2.11.2010, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was very necessary and in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to examine the handwriting and finger print expert as well as the stamp vendor, who had sold the stamp paper. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Phuman Singh and another vs. Hazara Singh and others 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 671, wherein, it was held as under :- “Thus, no iota of doubt remains in the mind of this Court that application for additional evidence could be allowed by invoking the provisions of Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if it was really essential for just decision of the case. The copies of the revenue record, sought to be produced by the plaintiff certainly, are necessary for just decision of the case.” 3. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on Hans Raj vs. Surinder Kaur and others 2010 (2) Civil Court Cases 377 (P&H), wherein it was held as under:- “As far as value and effect of those documents is concerned, this court is not opining thereon, as the same shall be considered by the learned court below after hearing arguments of both the parties, but I find that the documents are relevant for the purpose of decision of the lis between the parties. As to whether they are per se admissible or not will also be considered by the Court below. As to whether they are per se admissible or not will also be considered by the Court below. Merely because there is some delay or some lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel in nor producing the documents at the initial stage, I do not find that to be sufficient reason for dis-allowing the application for additional evidence, even after the deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. 5. After conclusion of evidence of the plaintiff on 8.12.2009, the case was adjourned from time to time for the evidence of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner closed the evidence on 23.2.2010. However, the petitioner never made an effort to examine the handwriting and finger print expert or the stamp vendor before closing his evidence. The additional evidence, now sought to be produced on record, was also in the knowledge of the petitioner and for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the handwriting and finger print expert and the stamp vendor were not examined by him and he closed his evidence on 23.2.2010. In these circumstances, the application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead evidence has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. ----------0K.0B.------------